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 .
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.
Response to Amendment
Applicant's arguments with respect to claims 1-19 as they pertain to the prior art have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection, as necessitated by amendment.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 6/8/2026. These drawings are accepted.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-7, 10-11, 14-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishimasa US 20130155529 (hereinafter “Ishimasa”) of record in view of Kishida et. al US 20120262595 (hereinafter “Kishida”).
Regarding claim 1, Ishimasa teaches a lens apparatus comprising:
a holding frame (Ishimasa fig. 1 - 402) configured to hold a first lens (Ishimasa fig. 1 - 402 holding 401) having a non-circular shape (Ishimasa fig. 6 – 401 has notches 401b cut to make it non-circular);
a driving unit (Ishimasa fig. 1 - 404, 507) configured to drive the holding frame (402) in a direction along an optical axis (Ishimasa para. 0031); and
a mount (Ishimasa fig. 1 – 509 which connects to a holder for 604, see also para. 0034) configured to be attached an imaging apparatus (Ishimasa fig. 1 – 509, 601, 604, see also para. 0034),
wherein, when the lens apparatus is viewed from the direction along the optical axis, at least a part of the driving unit (404, 507) is disposed inside a circumscribed circle of the first lens (Ishimasa fig. 6 - shows 401b which at least part of 404 is disposed within), and
wherein a part of the first lens (401) is disposed at a location that overlaps an object-side end surface of the mount (see annotated and cropped Ishimasa fig. 1 below – black arrow shows that part of 401 overlaps an object-side surface of the holder for 604, which is the object-side surface of the mount) or is disposed closer to an image plane than the object-side end surface of the mount in the direction along the optical axis.
PNG
media_image1.png
654
500
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Ishimasa does not specifically teach that the mount is detachably attached to the imaging apparatus, however it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to make the lens mount detachably attached to the imaging apparatus for the purpose of having an interchangeable lens assembly, since it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. In re Dulberg 129 USPQ 348, 349 (CCPA 1961).
Further, In the same field of endeavor, Kishida teaches that the mount (Kishida fig. 1 - 2) is detachably attached to the imaging apparatus (Kishida fig. 1 – 3, see also para. 0049) for the purpose of having an interchangeable lens assembly (Kishida para. 0049). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the mount be detachably attached to the imaging assembly as taught by Kishida in the lens apparatus of Ishimasa in order to have an interchangeable lens assembly (Kishida para. 0049).
Regarding claim 2, Ishimasa and Kishida teach the lens apparatus according to claim 1, and Ishimasa further teaches wherein at least a part of the driving unit (404, 507) overlaps the first lens (401) in the direction along the optical axis (Ishimasa fig. 6 – 404 overlaps part of the cutout of 401).
Regarding claim 3, Ishimasa and Kishida teach the lens apparatus according to claim 1, and Ishimasa further teaches wherein at least a part of the driving unit (404, 507) is disposed closer to an image plane than the object-side end surface of the mount in the direction along the optical axis (see cropped annotated Ishimasa fig. 1 above – shows that 404 is closer to the image plane than the indicated object-side end surface of the mount).
Regarding claim 4, Ishimasa and Kishida teach the lens apparatus according to claim 1, and Ishimasa further teaches wherein at least a part of a driving range of the holding frame (402) overlaps the object-side end surface of the mount (Ishimasa fig. 1 – 402 holding 401 is driven to move along the optical axis, where it would overlap the indicated object-side end surface of the mount in the direction of the optical axis) or is closer to the image plane than the object-side end surface of the mount in the direction along the optical axis.
Regarding claim 5, Ishimasa and Kishida teach the lens apparatus according to claim 1, and Ishimasa further teaches comprising a board configured to electrically connect to the driving unit (see annotated Ishimasa fig. 6 below with the board labeled, since the board is connected to 402 which is driven by 404, the board would be electrically connected to 404),
PNG
media_image2.png
556
568
media_image2.png
Greyscale
wherein an outer circumference of the first lens includes a first area inside the circumscribed circle (Ishimasa fig. 6 – circumscribed area is shown as dotted line around 401 including shaded areas 401b, all of which would be the first area),
wherein the first area includes a first part area and a second part area (see annotated Ishimasa fig. 6 below), and
PNG
media_image3.png
556
800
media_image3.png
Greyscale
wherein, when the lens apparatus is viewed from the direction along the optical axis, at least a part of the driving unit (404, 507) is disposed in the first part area (Ishimasa annotated fig. 6 above – shows part of the driving unit 404 disposed within the labeled first part area), and at least a part of the board is disposed in the second part area (see Ishimasa fig. 6 below with the board labeled in the second part area).
PNG
media_image4.png
556
800
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 6, Ishimasa and Kishida teach the lens apparatus according to claim 5, and Ishimasa further teaches
wherein the first area includes a third part area and a fourth part area (see annotated Ishimasa fig. 6 below), and
wherein, when the lens apparatus is viewed from the direction along the optical axis, at least a part of the board is disposed in the third part area and the fourth part area (see annotated Ishimasa below, where the labeled board would be partly in the third and fourth part areas).
PNG
media_image5.png
556
800
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 7, Ishimasa and Kishida teach the lens apparatus according to claim 5, and Ishimasa further teaches wherein at least a part of a driving range of the holding frame (402) overlaps the board in the direction along the optical axis (Ishimasa fig. 6 - since the driving range is along the optical axis, 402 would overlap the above labeled board since it is disposed on 402).
Regarding claim 10, Ishimasa and Kishida teach the lens apparatus according to claim 1, and Ishimasa further teaches comprising a second lens having a non-circular shape (Ishimasa fig. 1-2, 5 – 201 has a non-circular shape),
wherein an outer circumference of the second lens (201) includes a second area inside a circumscribed circle centered on the optical axis (Ishimasa fig. 5 – 201a, see also para. 0041-0042), and
wherein the second lens (201) is disposed on the image plane side or an object side with respect to the first lens (Ishimasa fig. 1 – 201 is disposed on the object side of 401).
Regarding claim 11, Ishimasa and Kishida teach the lens apparatus according to claim 10, and Ishimasa further teaches wherein at least a part of the driving unit (404, 507) overlaps the second area in the direction along the optical axis (Ishimasa fig. 5 – 404 and 404a are within 201a).
Regarding claim 14, Ishimasa and Kishida teach the lens apparatus according to claim 10, and Ishimasa further teaches wherein the non-circular shape of the second lens (201) obtained by cutting out a part of a lens surface that does not contribute to image forming on a light receiving surface of the imaging apparatus (Ishimasa para. 0042 – the notch 201a excludes the used region of 201).
Regarding claim 15, Ishimasa and Kishida teach the lens apparatus according to claim 1, and Kishida further teaches comprising a terminal unit (Kishida fig. 1 – 40, 10, 21) configured to electrically connect to the imaging apparatus (Kishida para. 0082),
wherein at least a part of the terminal unit (40) and at least a part of the first lens (Kishida fig. 1 – G5) overlap with each other when viewed from a direction perpendicular to the optical axis (Kishida fig. 1 – 40 at least partially overlaps all the lenses G1-G6 in a direction perpendicular to the optical axis AZ).
Regarding claim 16, Ishimasa and Kishida teach the lens apparatus according to claim 15, and Kishida further teaches wherein at least a part of the driving unit (Kishida fig. 1 – 63, 65) overlaps the terminal unit (40, 10, 21) in the direction along the optical axis (Kishida fig. 1 – 21 overlaps with 63, 65 in a direction along the optical axis).
Regarding claim 17, Ishimasa and Kishida teach the lens apparatus according to claim 1, and Ishimasa further teaches wherein the non-circular shape of the first lens (401) obtained by cutting out a part of a lens surface that does not contribute to image forming on a light receiving surface of the imaging apparatus (Ishimasa para. 0041-0042).
Regarding claim 18, Ishimasa teaches a lens apparatus comprising:
a first lens (Ishimasa fig. 1 - 201) having a non-circular shape (Ishimasa fig. 5 – 201 has a notch 201a cut to make it non-circular);
a holding frame (Ishimasa fig. 1 - 402) configured to hold a lens different from the first lens (Ishimasa fig. 1 – 402 which holds 401);
a driving unit (Ishimasa fig. 1 – 404, 507) configured to drive the holding frame (402) in a direction along an optical axis (Ishimasa para. 0031); and
a mount (Ishimasa fig. 1 – 509 which connects to a holder for 604, see also para. 0034) configured to attached to an imaging apparatus (Ishimasa fig. 1 – 509, 601, 604, see also para. 0034),
wherein, when the lens apparatus is viewed from the direction along the optical axis, at least a part of the driving unit (404, 507) is disposed inside a circumscribed circle of the first lens (Ishimasa fig. 5 – 404 and 404a are within a circumscribed circle of 201 which includes notch 201a), and
wherein a part of the first lens (201) is disposed at a location that overlaps an object-side end surface of the mount (see annotated Ishimasa fig. 1 below, where the object-side end surface of the mount is labeled and the black line shows how 201 overlaps) or is disposed closer to an image plane than the object-side end surface of the mount in the direction along the optical axis.
PNG
media_image6.png
658
737
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Ishimasa does not specifically teach that the mount is detachably attached to the imaging apparatus, however it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to make the lens mount detachably attached to the imaging apparatus for the purpose of having an interchangeable lens assembly, since it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. In re Dulberg 129 USPQ 348, 349 (CCPA 1961).
Further, In the same field of endeavor, Kishida teaches that the mount (Kishida fig. 1 - 2) is detachably attached to the imaging apparatus (Kishida fig. 1 – 3, see also para. 0049) for the purpose of having an interchangeable lens assembly (Kishida para. 0049). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the mount be detachably attached to the imaging assembly as taught by Kishida in the lens apparatus of Ishimasa in order to have an interchangeable lens assembly (Kishida para. 0049).
Regarding claim 19, Ishimasa and Kishida teach an imaging apparatus comprising:
the lens apparatus according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above); and
an image sensor (Ishimasa fig. 1 – 601) configured to receive light from the lens apparatus (Ishimasa para. 0034).
Claims 8-9, 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishimasa as applied to claims 1 and 10 above, and further in view of Nuno et. al US 20080117527 (hereinafter “Nuno”) of record.
Regarding claim 8, Ishimasa and Kishida teach the lens apparatus according to claim 1.
Ishimasa and Kishida do not specify wherein the first lens is a plastic lens.
In the same field of endeavor, Nuno teaches wherein the first lens is a plastic lens (Nuno para. 0373) for the purpose of having an aspheric surface (Nuno para. 0373). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a plastic lens as taught by Nuno in the lens apparatus of Ishimasa and Kishida in order to have an aspheric surface (Nuno para. 0373).
Regarding claim 9, Ishimasa and Kishida teach the lens apparatus according to claim 1.
Ishimasa and Kishida do not specify wherein the first lens is an aspherical lens.
In the same field of endeavor, Nuno teaches wherein the first lens is an aspherical lens (Nuno para. 0373) for the purpose of improving downsizing while keeping preferable aberration correction (Nuno para. 0372). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a plastic lens as taught by Nuno in the lens apparatus of Ishimasa and Kishida in order to improve downsizing while keeping preferable aberration correction (Nuno para. 0372).
Regarding claim 12, Ishimasa and Kishida teach the lens apparatus according to claim 10.
Ishimasa and Kishida do not specify wherein the second lens is a plastic lens.
In the same field of endeavor, Nuno teaches wherein the second lens is a plastic lens (Nuno para. 0373) for the purpose of having an aspheric surface (Nuno para. 0373). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a plastic lens as taught by Nuno in the lens apparatus of Ishimasa and Kishida in order to have an aspheric surface (Nuno para. 0373).
Regarding claim 13, Ishimasa and Kishida teach the lens apparatus according to claim 10.
Ishimasa and Kishida do not specify wherein the second lens is an aspherical lens.
In the same field of endeavor, Nuno teaches wherein the second lens is an aspherical lens (Nuno para. 0373) for the purpose of improving downsizing while keeping preferable aberration correction (Nuno para. 0372). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a plastic lens as taught by Nuno in the lens apparatus of Ishimasa and Kishida in order to improve downsizing while keeping preferable aberration correction (Nuno para. 0372).
Conclusion
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELIZABETH M HALL whose telephone number is (703)756-5795. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9-5:30 pm PST.
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, Ricky Mack can be reached at (571)272-2333. 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.
/ELIZABETH M HALL/Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/ZACHARY W WILKES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights