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 .
Election/Restrictions
In response to the Election/Restriction mailed to applicant ton 01/16/2026, applicant has made an election of Invention II in the reply filed on 03/05/2026. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
As a result of applicant’s election, claims 1 and 6-21 are examined in the present office action, and claims 2-5 and 22-26 have been withdrawn from further consideration as being directed to non-elected Invention.
Applicant should note that the non-elected claims 2-5 and 22-26 will be rejoined if the linking claim 1 is later found as an allowable claim.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
The drawings contain thirteen sheets of figures 1-13 were received on 01/10/2024. These drawings are
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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 limitations are:
a) “a tilt mechanism” and “a shift mechanism” as recited in present claim 1; and
b) “a cam mechanism” as recited in present claim 6.
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
10. 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.
Claims 1 and 6-20 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.
a) Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the elements. See MPEP § 2172.01.
The omitted elements are element(s) being used to connect the rotary member, the lens holding member and the movement member so that the lens holding member and the movement member can move along (or in) the optical axis (direction). In other words, it is unclear from the claimed language how the lens holding member and the movement member can move in an optical axis direction via the so-called “engages” between the groove formed on the rotary member and the lens holding member/movement member. What kind of structure does “engage(s)” provide?
b) The remaining claims are dependent upon the rejected base claim and thus inherit the deficiency thereof.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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, 6-7, 10-16 and 19-21, as best as understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hasegawa (US Publication No. 2018/0348472).
Hasegawa discloses an optical apparatus.
a) Regarding present claim , the apparatus as described in paragraphs [0020]-[0042] and shown in figs. 1-12 comprises the following features;
a1) a lens mechanism (LB), see paragraph [0020];
a2) atilt mechanism (13) that tilts the lens mechanism (LB), see paragraph [0027];
a3) a shift mechanism (14) that shifts the lens mechanism, see paragraph [0027]; and
a4) regarding the structure of the lens mechanism, as described in paragraphs [0022]-[0026] and [0028]-[0042], the lens mechanism comprises the following features:
a41) a lens holding member (2) that holds a lens (L2) which lens holding member (2) is moved in an optical axis direction;
a42) a movement member (10) that moves in the optical axis direction wherein the movement member (10) is located at an object end of the lens mechanism (LB);
a43) a rotary member (7) that rotates around the optical axis direction; and
a44) the rotary member (7) comprises a first set of grooves (7d, 7f, 7e) that engages with the lens holding member (2), see paragraph [0036], for example, and a second set of grooves (7j, 7k, 7l) that engages with the movement member (10), see paragraph [0041], for example.
b) Regarding present claims 6-7 and 21, the first and second set of groves and the correspondent rollers/protrusions formed on the lens holding member (2) and the movement member (10) constitute a cam mechanism wherein the movement of the rotary member (7) with that cam mechanism move the lens holding member and the movement member (10) together with each other in the optical axis direction.
c) Regarding present claims 10-12, the lens holding member has a first engagement position which is a position wherein the lens holding member (2) engages with one of the set of first grooves (7d, 7f, 7e) and the movement member (10) has a second engagement position which is a position wherein the movement member (10) engages with one of the set of second groves ((7j, 7k, 7l) wherein a second distance is smaller than a first distance, where the first distance is a distance between the first engagement position and the second engagement position in the optical axis direction in a infinity state, which is a state where the lens holding member and the movement member have been moved to an image formation side opposite to the object side and the second distance is a distance between the first engagement position and the second engagement position in the optical axis direction in a short-distance state, which is a state where the lens holding member and the movement member have been moved to the object side.
d) Regarding present claims 13-14, at least one first groove (7d, 7f, 7e) includes a bottom portion over an entire length of the first grove in a lengthwise direction.
e) Regarding present claims 15-16, at least one second grooves (7j, 7k, 7l) having a portion that penetrates the rotary member (7) in a radial direction over the entire length of the second groove in a lengthwise direction.
f) Regarding present claims 19-20, the first set of grooves (7j, 7k, 7l) is formed independently of the second set of groves (7j, 7k, 7l) wherein the second set of groovers is positioned on an object side of the first set of groves, see [0022]-[0026] and [0028]-[0042] and figs 2 and 7.
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 8-9 and 17-18, as best as understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hasegawa.
It is noted that while Hasegawa does not positive disclose that the pitch of the second groove or the width of the second groove each is smaller than the pitch of the first groove or width of the first groove as claimed; however, it would have been obvious to one skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the cam mechanism provided by Hasegawa by using first and second set of groves in which the pitch/width of the second grove(s) is smaller than thee pitch/width of the first groove to meet a particular application.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THONG Q NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571) 272-2316. The examiner can normally be reached M - Th: 6:00 ~ 17:00.
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, STEPHONE B. ALLEN can be reached at (571) 272-2434. 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.
/THONG Q NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights