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 .
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 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 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 of this title, 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1–5, 7–10, 12–15, 17, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2021-196581 A to Sugawara (machine translation attached).
Regarding Claim 1, Sugawara discloses (e.g., at least Figs. 2–4 and their description in the translation) a lens device 2 comprising: a lens barrel 6; a lens frame 17 that is supported to be movable with respect to the lens barrel in an optical axis direction (“lens unit 2 has a lens guide device 8 which is a guide mechanism for guiding the lens frame 17 in the optical axis A direction of the lens unit 2”); a drive mechanism that moves the lens frame (“an actuator 10 for applying a driving force to the lens guide device 8”); a first magnet member 36 that is provided on the lens frame (Fig. 2); a second permanent magnet member 38a that is provided at a first end part of the lens barrel in the optical axis direction (“[t]he first cushioning magnet 38a is a permanent magnet . . . attached to the inner surface of the end face of the first frame 18a so as to face the cushioning coil 36,” Fig. 2); and a third permanent magnet member 38b that is provided at a second end part of the lens barrel in the optical axis direction (“[t]he second cushioning magnet 38b is a permanent magnet . . . attached to the inner surface of the second frame 18b so as to face the cushioning coil 36,” Fig. 2).
Sugawara does not explicitly disclose that cushioning coil 36 is a permanent magnet member (though Sugawara does disclose permanent magnet 30 provided on the lens frame). That is, the difference between the prior art and Claim 1 appears to be in the selection of a permanent magnet in place of a coil magnet.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify the device of Sugawara such that the coil magnet 36 is formed as a permanent magnet as a matter of design choice, where permanent magnets achieve reduced power consumption and are always active, making them suitable for use in place of the coil magnet of Sugawara that is operated when the camera drive coil 32 is inactive or not driven, and where Sugawara seeks to reduce impact by use of cushioning permanent magnets 38a/b in connection with buffer coil 36 (e.g., description of operation with reference to Figs. 1–4, comprising 10 paragraphs preceding the description of Figs. 5 and 6 of the translation; MPEP § 2144.04,06–07). Such a modification would have been within the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing, and yielded predictable results based on known principles of operation of coil magnets and permanent magnets, absent evidence of criticality or otherwise unobvious results from the claim features.
Regarding Claim 2, Sugawara would have rendered obvious wherein the first permanent magnet member has a first pole receiving a repulsive force from the second permanent magnet member and a second pole receiving a repulsive force from the third permanent magnet member (see the below quoted portion of the translation, found in the description of operation with reference to Figs. 1–4, comprising 10 paragraphs preceding the description of Figs. 5 and 6 of the translation, describing the required repulsive poles to prevent or mitigate collision):
As described above, when the lens frame 17 starts to move due to gravity, an induced current flows in the driving coil 32 attached to the lens frame 17, and this induced current flows in the buffer coil 36. That is, an induced current flows through the cushioning coil 36 that moves toward the movable end together with the lens frame 17, and the cushioning coil 36 generates a magnetic field. For example, when the camera 1 is tilted so that the tip of the lens unit 2 faces downward, the lens frame 17 moves toward the movable end on the front side. As a result, the cushioning coil 36 moves toward the first cushioning magnet 38a attached to the first frame 18a.
Here, the magnetic field generated in the buffer coil 36 by the induced current is generated in the direction repelling the magnetic field generated by the first buffer magnet 38a. Therefore, when the lens frame 17 approaches the movable end on the front side, a repulsive force is generated between the cushioning coil 36 and the first buffering magnet 38a, and collision between the lens frame 17 and the movable end on the front side is avoided, or It is relaxed (collision at a slow speed).
On the contrary, when the camera 1 is tilted so that the base end of the lens unit 2 faces downward, the lens frame 17 moves toward the movable end on the rear side. As a result, the cushioning coil 36 moves toward the second cushioning magnet 38b attached to the second frame 18b. Here, the direction of the current flowing through the cushioning coil 36 when the lens frame 17 moves toward the rear movable end is opposite to the direction in which the lens frame 17 moves toward the front movable end. .. Therefore, the direction of the magnetic field generated by the cushioning coil 36 is also opposite to that when the lens frame 17 moves toward the movable end on the front side, and this magnetic field is the magnetic field generated by the second cushioning magnet 38b. It becomes a direction to repel. As a result, when the lens frame 17 approaches the rear movable end, a repulsive force is generated between the cushioning coil 36 and the second cushioning magnet 38b, and collision between the lens frame 17 and the rear movable end is avoided. , Or mitigation (collision at slow speed).
Regarding Claim 3, Sugawara would have rendered obvious wherein the first end part is a part facing the first permanent magnet member in a case where the lens frame is moved to a first movable end part, and the second end part is a part facing the first permanent magnet member in a case where the lens frame is moved to a second movable end part (e.g., Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 4, Sugawara would have rendered obvious a first contact portion that is provided on the lens frame (e.g., portion holding coil 36, Fig. 2); and a second contact portion that is provided at the first end part and comes into contact with the first contact portion (e.g., 18a, holding permanent magnet 38a).
Regarding Claim 5, Sugawara would have rendered obvious wherein the first end part is a part facing the first permanent magnet member in a case where the lens frame is moved to the first movable end part, and the second contact portion is disposed between the first movable end part and the first end part (Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 7, Sugawara would have rendered obvious wherein the first contact portion is provided at a part of the lens frame that is different from a part where the first permanent magnet member is provided, and the second contact portion is provided at a part of the first end part that is different from a part where the second permanent magnet member is provided (Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 8, Sugawara would have rendered obvious wherein the first contact portion is provided on the first permanent magnet member, and the second contact portion is provided on the second permanent magnet member (Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 9, Sugawara would have rendered obvious wherein at least one of the first contact portion or the second contact portion includes a buffering member (Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 10, Sugawara would have rendered obvious a third contact portion that is provided on the lens frame (e.g., portion holding coil 36, Fig. 2); and a fourth contact portion that is provided at the second end part and comes into contact with the third contact portion (e.g., 18a, holding permanent magnet 38a, where the directionality can be reversed, that is, magnets 38a and 38b may be arbitrarily labeled second or third or third and second).
Regarding Claim 12, Sugawara would have rendered obvious wherein the third contact portion is provided at a part of the lens frame that is different from a part where the first permanent magnet member is provided, and the fourth contact portion is provided at a part of the second end part that is different from a part where the third permanent magnet member is provided (Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 13, Sugawara would have rendered obvious wherein the third contact portion is provided on the first permanent magnet member, and the fourth contact portion is provided on the third permanent magnet member (Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 14, Sugawara would have rendered obvious wherein at least one of the third contact portion or the fourth contact portion includes a buffering member (Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 15, Sugawara would have rendered obvious wherein, in a case where the lens device is divided into a first region and a second region in a radial direction of the lens barrel as viewed from the optical axis direction, a sensor that detects a position of the lens frame is disposed in the first region, and the first permanent magnet member, the second permanent magnet member, and the third permanent magnet member are disposed in the second region (where, for example, first sliding portion 17a, which identifies a position of the lens frame, is located radially in a different region than permanent magnets 18a/18b/36).
Regarding Claim 17, Sugawara would have rendered obvious wherein, in a case where a first work amount that is a work amount by a repulsive force of the second permanent magnet member or the third permanent magnet member is denoted by W1, and a second work amount that is a work amount by a gravitational force acting on the lens frame is denoted by W2, 0.5≤W1/W2≤1.5 is satisfied (where Sugawara teaches that the purpose of the magnets is to counteract effects of gravity, e.g., Abstract and description, it would have been obvious to select similar work amounts for the magnets as gravity to balance their effects).
Regarding Claim 22, Sugawara would have rendered obvious wherein the first permanent magnet member and the second permanent magnet member are disposed in orientations facing each other in a radial direction of the lens barrel, and the first permanent magnet member and the third permanent magnet member are disposed in orientations facing each other in the radial direction (Fig. 2).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5, 11, 16, and 18–21 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN CROCKETT whose telephone number is (571)270-3183. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am to 5pm.
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, Michael Caley can be reached at 571-272-2286. 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.
/RYAN CROCKETT/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871