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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 4/1/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1, 5, and 8 under 35 U.S.C. 103 in view of Nakamura (Pub. No. US 2017/0242215 A1; hereafter Nakamura), Izumi (Pub. No. US 2017/0242216 A1; hereafter Izumi), and Kato (Pub. No. US 2015/0177027 A1; hereafter Kato) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Nakamua, Izumi, Kato, and Iida (U.S. Patent No. 4,847,650; hereafter Iida).
As Applicant notes, the prior art of Nakamura, Izumi, and Kato in combination do not disclose a triggering member wherein one of the limit switch and triggering member is fixedly provided on the lens barrel, and the other of the limit switch and the triggering member is fixedly connected to the lens group; the control device is electrically connected to the limit switch and configured to control the drive motor to work according to the limit switch. Examiner has relied upon the teaching of Iida to disclose such features.
Applicant argues that prior art Iida does not disclose or fairly suggest the triggering member because, in Applicant’s invention, “the ‘triggering member’ is a separate physical part, distinct from the lens group itself” (see Applicant’s remarks p. 7). Applicant argues that Iida’s triggering member is not a physically separate component, and therefore cannot render obvious the “triggering member” called for in claim 1 as currently presented. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Initially, Examiner disagrees that the claims require the triggering member to be a “separate physical part” as argued by Applicant. The claim requires that the triggering member is “fixedly connected” to either the lens group or the lens barrel, in the broadest reasonable interpretation, this would include items that are integrally formed as part of the lens barrel or lens group. Examiner therefore maintains that the teaching of Iida is sufficient without further modification.
Furthermore, even assuming further modification was necessary, making items integral or separable is deemed well within the purview of the ordinary workman in the art (see MPEP 2144.04(V)(C)). In this case, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art that the triggering member could be a separate component in order to enable the triggering member to be added to a pre-existing lens group.
Finally, prior art Nakamura discloses using a photointerrupter shield wing as part of the position sensing to determine when the lens is at a reference position (see Nakamura Fig. 1, items 3e and 10), and Applicant discloses that such a device is reasonably construed as a “triggering member” (see Applicant’s specification paragraph [0045] which discloses that the triggering member could be a baffle for a photointerrupt switch).
It would therefore have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed that the triggering member of Iida could be a distinct component like a photointerrupt flag, such as that disclosed in Nakamura, as an alternative switch triggering mechanism to a contact switch.
Applicant’s argument that the teaching of Iida does not render the triggering member obvious because it is integral to the lens holder, as opposed to a physically distinct element, is therefore not persuasive, and the rejections made in view of Nakamura, Izumi, Kato, and Iida are maintained and are represented below.
The remainder of Applicant’s arguments rest on the perceived deficiency of Iida, and are therefore similarly addressed.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. None of the figures provided in the application clearly or specifically point out any triggering mechanism, and the specification does not disclose that any numeral assigned to the triggering mechanism. They further do not show any triggering mechanism which is a physically separate and distinct element from the lens group or lens barrel, as argued by Applicant. Therefore, the triggering member must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 (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 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, 7, and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nakamura (Pub. No. US. 2017/0242215 A1; hereafter Nakamura) in view of Izumi (Pub. No. US 2017/0242216 A1; hereafter Izumi), Kato (Pub. No. US 2015/0177027 A1; hereafter Kato), and Iida et al. (U.S. Patent 4,847,650; hereafter Iida).
Regarding claim 1, Nakamura discloses a lens structure, comprising: a lens barrel extending along a first direction (see Nakamura paragraph [0026] “The guide shaft 4a and the guide shaft 4b… are fixed to a lens barrel or the like.”); a lens assembly comprising a lens group configured to be movable along the first direction (see Nakamura Fig. 1, item 2); a drive mechanism fixedly connected to the lens group and configured to drive the lens group to move along the first direction (see Nakamura Fig. 1, items 3a-3e and 6); a position detection device configured to detect a position of the lens group in real time (see Nakamura Fig. 1, items 9 and 10); and a control device electrically connected to the position detection device and the drive mechanism and configured to control the drive mechanism to work according to the position detection device to adjust the position of the lens group (see Nakamura Fig. 1, item 31 and paragraph [0036] “the CPU 31 functions as a controller for instructing rotational position of the stepping motor based on target information that has been input. Also, this controller determines a virtual target rotational position based on target position corresponding to detected position of a position detection section corresponding to target information that has been input”); wherein the drive mechanism comprises a drive motor provided with an output shaft extending along the first direction (see Nakamura Fig. 1, item 6); a screw extending along the first direction and coaxially connected to the output shaft (see Nakamura Fig. 1, item 7); and a drive nut sleeved on a periphery of the screw and fixedly connected to the lens group to drive the lens group to move along the first direction (see Nakamura Fig. 1, item 11); wherein the control device is electrically connected to the drive motor to control the drive motor to work (see Nakamura Fig. 1, items 31, 24, and 6).
Nakamura does not specifically disclose that the position detection device comprises a magnetic grating sensor comprising a magnetic head and a magnetic grating, the magnetic grating is extended along the first direction, and the magnetic head is configured to be movable along the first direction and is fixedly connected to the lens group; or the position detection device comprises an optical grating sensor comprising a ruler grating and an indicator grating, the ruler grating is extended along the first direction, and the indicator grating is configured to be movable along the first direction and is fixedly connected to the lens group.
Prior art Izumi discloses an optical or magnetic sensor and head with a portion that is extended along the first direction, and the head is configured to be movable along the first direction and is fixedly connected to the lens group (see Izumi Fig. 2B, items 115a and 115b. See also Izumi paragraph [0039] which discloses that “first detection unit 115a… is installed in the lens holding frame 113” and that while “the illustrated example uses the optical sensor as the first detection unit 115a, a magnetic sensor or a mechanical sensor may be used.”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to replace the lens detection magnetic sensor of Nakamura with a lens position detection sensor like that in Izumi as a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results (see MPEP 2143(I)(B)).
Nakamura in view of Izumi does not specifically disclose that the optical or magnetic sensor comprises an optical or magnetic grating, respectively.
Prior art Kato discloses that an optical position sensor can comprise optical grating (see Kato Fig. 11, items 120, 840, and 150).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide the optical position sensor of Nakamura in view of Izumi as an optical grating sensor in order to enable the device to have high precision and accuracy, such that “an optical encoder that can obtain a detection signal precisely having a period P/2, where P is a grating pitch” (see Kato paragraph [0019]).
Nakamura as modified does not specifically disclose a limit switch and a triggering member; wherein one of the limit switch and the triggering member is fixedly provided on the lens barrel, and the other of the limit switch and the triggering member is fixedly connected to the lens group; and the control device is electrically connected to the limit switch and configured to control the drive motor to work according to the limit switch.
Iida discloses a limit switch (see Iida Fig. 6, items 66 and 67) and a triggering member (while Iida does not explicitly recite a triggering member, whatever portion of the lens trips the switch can be construed as the triggering member); wherein one of the limit switch and the triggering member is fixedly provided on the lens barrel (see Iida Fig. 6, items 66 and 67), and the other of the limit switch and the triggering member is fixedly connected to the lens group (See Response to Arguments, above.); and the control device is electrically connected to the limit switch and configured to control the drive motor to work according to the limit switch (see Iida col. 5,ll. 41-43 “the taking lens 55 is provided with a near side limit switch 66 and a far side limit switch 67 which control the compensator 5.”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide limit switches like those in Iida in the device of Nakamura in order to control the motors to stop driving the lens at the limits in order to prevent unintentional damage to the motor or lenses by overdriving.
Regarding claim 7, Nakamura as modified disclose the lens structure according to claim 1, but does not discloses that the lens assembly comprises multiple lens groups arranged at intervals in the first direction; multiple drive mechanisms and multiple position detection devices are provided, each drive mechanism is configured to drive one lens group to move, and each position detection device is configured to detect a position of one corresponding lens group; and the control device is electrically connected to the multiple position detection devices and the multiple drive mechanisms and is configured to control one corresponding drive mechanism to work according to each position detection device.
Iida discloses that the lens assembly comprises multiple lens groups arranged at intervals in the first direction (see Iida Fig. 6, items 4 and 5); multiple drive mechanisms and multiple position detection devices are provided (see Iida Figs. 6 and 7, items 64 and 65, encoder 61 and limit switches 66 and 67 are multiple position detectors), each drive mechanism is configured to drive one lens group to move (see Iida Fig. 7, items 64 and 65, corresponding to lens groups 4 and 5), and each position detection device is configured to detect a position of one corresponding lens group (see Iida Fig. 6, encoder 61 detecting position of lens 4 and limit switches 66 and 67 detecting position of lens 5); and the control device is electrically connected to the multiple position detection devices and the multiple drive mechanisms and is configured to control one corresponding drive mechanism to work according to each position detection device (see Iida Fig. 7, item 80 connected to 64 and 65 for control.).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide the device of Nakamura with a compound lens barrel like that in Iida in order to provide both zoom and focus capabilities, and a controller to automatically conduct zoom and focus operations.
Regarding claim 8, Nakamura as modified discloses a photographic device, comprising the lens structure according to claim 1 (see Nakamura paragraph [0022] “a digital camera is adopted as one embodiment of the present invention”).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamura in view of Izumi, Kato, and Iida, and further in view of Izumi.
Regrading claim 9, Nakamura discloses a focusing method of lens, performed based on the lens structure according to claim 1, but does not specifically disclose that the method comprises: controlling a position detection device to detect position information of a lens group in real time, and obtaining actual position information of the lens group; comparing the actual position information and target position information to obtain a displacement difference value; and controlling the drive mechanism to work according to the displacement difference value to adjust the lens group to the target position;
Izumi discloses controlling a position detection device to detect position information of a lens group in real time, and obtaining actual position information of the lens group; comparing the actual position information and target position information to obtain a displacement difference value (see Izumi paragraph [0045] “the control unit 124 determines whether the current position coincided with the target position by comparing the target position and the current position (step S304).”); and controlling the drive mechanism to work according to the displacement difference value to adjust the lens group to the target position (see Izumi paragraph [0045] “When they did not coincide (NO in the step S304), the control unit 124 returns the process to the step S303” which is moving the lens).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide the device of Nakamura with drive control like that in Izumi in order to provide closed-loop feedback control which can ensure that the lens is at the target position by checking against the actual position.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamura in view of Izumi, Kato, and IIda as applied to claim 9, above, and further in view Yagi (Pub. No. US 2014/0043702 A1; hereafter Yagi).
Nakamura as modified discloses the focusing method of the lens according to claim 9, and Izumi further discloses that before the controlling the position detection device to detect the position information of the lens group in real time, and obtaining the actual position information of the lens group, the method comprises: obtaining the target position information (see Izumi Fig. 3, step S302).
Nakamura in view of Izumi does not disclose controlling the drive mechanism to drive the lens group to move from an initial position to the target position before detecting the position of the lens in real time.
Yagi discloses that it was well known in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide a focus control which switches between open-loop and closed-loop control based on the circumstances (see Yagi paragraphs [0005]-[0006] which discloses that in one known method “switching between open loop control and closed loop control is carried out depending only on the amount of movement” but that this is “not suitable for driving in which high position precision is required.” As a result, the Yagi invention “provides an imaging apparatus that is provided with a stepping motor in which the optimal drive control method is determined based on the drive speed and the drive distance.”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to start the device in open-loop control in order to save power by not utilizing the real-time position sensing, but to enable the device to switch to the closed-loop control when the circumstances dictate, based on both the drive amount and the drive speed, as taught by Yagi.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamura in view of Izumi, Kato, and Iida as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kaneda (U.S. Patent No.6,115,552; hereafter Kaneda).
Regarding claim 11, Nakamura as modified discloses the lens structure according to claim 1,
but does not specifically disclose that the limit switch is an infrared photoelectric control switch, and the triggering member is a baffle.
Nakamura discloses using a photointerrupter and baffle as a position detection mechanism similar to a limit switch for detecting a reference position of the lens (see Nakamura Fig. 1, items 10 and 3e), while Nakamura in view of Iida discloses using limit switches to detect the end positions of the lens movable range (see Iida Fig. 6, items 66 and 67 and rejection made with respect to claim 1, above.). However, Nakamura in view of Iida does not specifically suggest that an infrared light can be used as the lens position detector.
Kaneda discloses that “If the reset switch is the aforesaid type of photointerrupter, an iRED (infrared-emitting diode) is turned on and a detecting circuit for a photosensitive diode are actuated” (see Kaneda col. 19, ll. 56-59).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed that the photointerrupter switch of Nakamura in view of Izumi, Kato, and Iida be provided as an infrared photointerrupter in order to utilize a well-known photointerrupter like that taught by Kaneda.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamura in view of Izumi, Kato, and Iida as applied to claim 9, above, and further in view of Ryu et al. (Pub. No. US 2018/0278853 A1; hereafter Ryu).
Regarding claim 12, Nakamura as modified discloses the focusing method of lens according to claim 9, but does not specifically disclose that the controlling the drive mechanism to work according to the displacement difference value to adjust the lens group to the target position comprises: controlling, by a proportion integral differential (PID) control algorithm, the drive mechanism to work according to the displacement difference value to adjust the lens group to the target position.
Ryu discloses that it was well known in the in the art at the time the invention was filed to control a lens position using PID control (see Ryu paragraph [0069] “the controller 332 may have a proportional-integral-derivative (PID) controller and perform PID controlling”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to utilize PID control like that shown in Ryu as PID control is a well-known control method with the benefits of “controlling to reduce an error in a steady state according to integral controlling, and perform controlling to reduce overshoot by preventing a rapid change according to derivative controlling” (see Ryu paragraph [0069]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NOAM S REISNER whose telephone number is (571)270-7542. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00AM-5:30PM.
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, STEPHANIE BLOSS can be reached at 571-272-3555. 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.
/NOAM REISNER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2852 5/26/2026
Prosecution Insights