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 Amendment
The present office action is made in response to the amendment filed by applicant on 08/20/2026. It is noted that in the amendment, applicant has made changes to the claims. There was not any change being made to the abstract, the drawings and the specification.
Regarding the claims, applicant has amended claims 1, 14, 16 and 26 and canceled claims 15 and 21.
Response to Arguments
The amendments to the claims provided in the amendment of 08/20/2026, and applicant's arguments provided in the mentioned amendment, pages 7-10, have been fully considered and resulted in the following conclusions.
A) Regarding the claims, because applicant has canceled claims 15 and 21 and has not added any claim into the application in the amendment of 08/20/2026, thus the pending claims are now claims 1-14, 16-20 and 22-26 in which claims 1, 6-14, and 16-20 are examined in the present office action, and claims 2-5 and 22-26 have been withdrawn from further consideration as being directed to non-elected Invention.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.
B) Regarding the Claim Interpretation set forth in the office action of 05/22/2026, the amendments to the claims provided in the amendment of 08/20/2026, and applicant’s arguments provided in the mentioned amendment, pages 7-8, have been fully considered and are sufficient to overcome the Claim Interpretation set forth in the mentioned office action.
C) Regarding the rejections of claims 1 and 6-20 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, set forth in the office action of 05/22/2026, the amendments to the claims provided in the amendment of 08/20/2026, and applicant’s arguments provided in the mentioned amendment, pages 8-9, have been fully considered and are sufficient to overcome the rejections of claims 1 and 6-20 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, set forth in the mentioned office action.
D) Regarding the rejection of claims 1, 6-7, 10-16 and 19-21 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hasegawa (US Publication No. 2018/0348472) set forth in the office action of 05/22/2026, the amendments to the claims provided in the amendment of 08/20/2026, and applicant’s arguments provided in the mentioned amendment, pages 9-10, have been fully considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
5. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
6. Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
The claim is rejected by the feature thereof “wherein the second groove penetrates the rotary member in the radial direction … second groove” (lines 2-4).
Applicant is respectfully invited to review its base claim 1 on lines 16-17 which recites that the second groove entirely penetrates the rotary member in the radial direction (examiner’s emphasis). Thus, claim 16 fails to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
7. 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.
8. The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
9. Claims 1, 6-7, 10-14, 16 and 19-20, as best as understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hasegawa (US Publication No. 2018/0348472, of record) in view of Aoki (US Publication No. 2019/0064474).
Hasegawa discloses an optical apparatus.
a) Regarding present claims 1 and 16, 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) a tilt mechanism (13) having a base which tilt mechanism tilts the lens mechanism (LB), see paragraph [0027];
a3) a shift mechanism (14) having a base which shift mechanism 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.
The only feature missing from the optical apparatus provided by Hasegawa is that Hasegawa does not disclose that the second grooves each is a non-perforating groove at least in a portion in a lengthwise direction as claimed.
However, an optical apparatus having a cam tube with grooves for engaging with projections/pins of a lens barrel/sleeve supporting a lens wherein the grooves are non-perforating grooves or perforating grooves is known to one skilled in the art as can be seen in the optical apparatus provided by Aoki. In particular, Aoki discloses an optical apparatus having a cam barrel 914) with cam grooves (14a) wherein cam groves (14a) engage with cam followers (11) and cam grooves each is a non-perorating groove or a perforating groove, see Aoki in paragraphs [0036]-[0041], in particular, paragraph [0039].
Thus, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the optical apparatus provided by Hasegawa by using a rotary member having cam grooves wherein each cam groove is a non-perforating grove or a pe4rforating groove as suggested by Aoki for the purpose of meeting a particular application.
b) Regarding present claims 6-7, 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 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 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.
10. Claims 8-9 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hasegawa in view of Aoki.
It is noted that in the combined product provided by Hasegawa and Aoki, 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 design.
Conclusion
11. The US Publication Nio. 2022/0269039 is cited as of interest in that it discloses an optical device having lens barrels and a cam tube with grooves wherein the grooves of the cam tube each is a non-penetrating groove or a penetrating groove, see paragraph [0020], for example.
12. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. 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 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.
13. 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