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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 06/21/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the Examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated over Santo et al. (US 2013/0027789, of record).
Regarding claim 1, Santo discloses a lens barrel (Figures 6 and 7) comprising: a first member ([0078] discloses: 280, ring) that is provided along an outer periphery of a lens barrel body (Figures 6 and 7 depict: 280, ring on outer periphery of 290, lens barrel); and a second member (213, zoom ring) that is provided along the outer periphery of the lens barrel body (Figure 6 depict: 213, zoom ring, provided on outer periphery of 290, lens barrel), wherein the first member has a first surface (surface adjacent to 213, see Figure 6), the second member has a second surface (surface adjacent to 280, see Figure 6), and the first surface is flush with the second surface in a case where a position of the first member is a reference position ([0096]-[0098] discloses: 213, zoom ring and 280, ring, are each operated, and user can intuitively grasp direction of operation from telephoto to wide angle, and is easier to set the zoom; [0083] discloses: 280, ring, is for fine adjustment of zoom, whereas 213, zoom ring, is for rough adjustment of zoom setting; Figure 6 depicts, tick grooves at adjacent flush positions of first and second surface; therefore considered to contain an adjustment position), and the first member and the second member are movable relative to each other ([0083] discloses: 280, ring, rotated by the user; [0093] discloses: 213, zoom ring, rotated by the user).
Regarding claim 2, Santo discloses the lens barrel according to claim 1, wherein the first member has a cylindrical shape or an arc shape (Figure 6 depicts: 280, ring, as a cylindrical shape).
Regarding claim 3, Santo discloses the lens barrel according to claim 1, wherein the first member is provided along the outer periphery of the lens barrel body (Figures 6 and 7 depict: 280, ring on outer periphery of 290, lens barrel) in a rotationally movable manner ([0083] discloses: 280, ring, rotated by the user), and a position of the first surface of the first member is rotatably displaced in a circumferential direction in a case where the first member is rotationally moved (Examiner notes that a position of the first surface, and can be located using tick grooves, is rotatably displaced, in circumferential direction, as defined by rotation of 280, ring).
Regarding claim 4, Santo discloses the lens barrel according to claim 1, wherein the second member is fixed to the lens barrel body (Figure 6 and 7 depicts: 213, zoom ring, fixed to the lens barrel body; Examiner notes that 213, is not able to be removed when in operation; therefore considered fixed to the body).
Regarding claim 5, Santo discloses the lens barrel according to claim 1, wherein the second member is adjacent to the first member and configures a part of an outer shape of the lens barrel body (Figure 6 depicts: 213, zoom ring, adjacent to 280, ring, and configured as a part of an outer shape of lens body barrel; Examiner notes that 280, ring defines the outer surface; therefore defining the shape of the lens body).
Regarding claim 6, Santo discloses the lens barrel according to claim 1, wherein the first member (280, ring) is provided along the outer periphery of the lens barrel body (290, lens barrel) in a rotationally movable manner (280, ring, rotated by the user), in a case where the first member is rotationally moved in a first direction from the reference position (Examiner notes that clockwise rotation of 280, ring is considered the first direction; the reference position is considered the middle starting point between zoom and telescopic rotation), a first level-difference corresponding to a rotational movement amount is generated between the first surface and the second surface ([0083] discloses: 211a, cam pins and 283b, cam grooves; rotation in the clockwise position of 280, ring, moves the pins along the cam grooves; therefore considered the first level-difference, corresponding to a rotational movement amount and between the first and second surface), and in a case where the first member is rotationally moved in a second direction opposite to the first direction from the reference position (Examiner notes that counter clockwise rotation of 280, ring is considered the second direction), a second level-difference in a direction opposite to the first level-difference, which corresponds to a rotational movement amount, is generated between the first surface and the second surface ([0083] discloses: 211a, cam pins and 283b, cam grooves; rotation in the counter clockwise position of 280, ring, moves the pins along the cam grooves; therefore considered the second level-difference, corresponding to a rotational movement amount and between the first and second surface).
Regarding claim 8, Santo discloses the lens barrel according to claim 1, wherein the first member has a small-diameter portion (inner circumference of 280, ring, see Figure 6) and a large-diameter portion (outer circumference of 280, ring, see Figure 6), and the first surface (surface adjacent to 213, see Figure 6, see Figure 6) is configured of a surface that connects a level difference of diameters of the small-diameter portion and the large-diameter portion (Examiner notes that the side of 280, ring, is configured to connect the inner circumference of 280, ring to outer circumference of 280, ring).
Regarding claim 9, Santo discloses the lens barrel according to claim 8, wherein the second member (213, zoom ring) configures a part of an outer shape of the lens barrel body (213, zoom ring, is mounted on the outer peripheral face of 290, lens barrel, see Figure 6), the part of the outer shape of the lens barrel body has a first outer shape corresponding to the small-diameter portion of the first member (213, zoom ring, sits adjacent to the inner diameter of 280, ring, with the outer diameter of 280, ring corresponding to the inner circumference of both 213, zoom ring and 280, ring, see Figure 6), the second member has a second outer shape corresponding to the large-diameter portion of the first member (213, zoom ring, also sits adjacent to the larger circumference of 280, ring, its outer surface therefore corresponds to that larger circumference of 280, ring as well; under BRI, these are spatially aligned and matched in position, even if not equal in size, see Figure 6), and the second surface is configured of a surface that connects a level difference between the first outer shape of the lens barrel body and the second outer shape of the second member (the side surface of 213, zoom ring necessarily connects its two outer contour regions and that side bridges the diameter step created and aligned with 280, ring, see Figure 6).
Regarding claim 10, Santo discloses the lens barrel according to claim 1, wherein the first member (280, ring) and the second member (213, zoom ring) are provided adjacent to each other in a lens optical axis direction (Figure 6 depicts: 280, ring and 213, zoom ring, provided adjacent to each other in the optical axis direction of the lens), and the first surface of the first member and the second surface of the second member are simultaneously contactable with the same finger (Examiner notes that a finger would be able to contact, through the groove between 280, ring and 213, zoom ring, both the first and second surface of the rings simultaneously; Examiner notes that the surfaces are physically capable of being contacted by one finger at the same time as required by the claims).
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 7 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Santo et al. (US 2013/0027789, of record), as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Hamasaki (US 5,223,982).
Regarding claim 7, Santo discloses the lens barrel according to claim 1.
Santo fails to disclose a lens barrel further comprising: a return member that returns the first member to the reference position. Santo and Hamasaki are related because both disclose lens barrel operating systems.
Hamasaki teaches a lens barrel further comprising: a return member that returns the first member to the reference position (Figures 6 and 7 depict: a return mechanism, between two members, the ring lever and the lens barrel).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of Santo to incorporate the teachings of Hamasaki and provide a lens barrel further comprising: a return member that returns the first member to the reference position. Doing so would allow for the zoom speed to be intuitively controlled based on user operation amount and direction, thereby improving operability and enabling more precise and responsive electric zoom control.
Regarding claim 11, Santo discloses the lens barrel according to claim 1.
Santo fails to disclose a lens barrel further comprising: a zoom speed commander that issues a command for a zoom speed of electric zoom according to relative movement of the first member and the second member. Santo and Hamasaki are related because both disclose lens barrel operating systems.
Hamasaki teaches a lens barrel further comprising: a zoom speed commander that issues a command for a zoom speed of electric zoom according to relative movement of the first member and the second member (Figure 5 depicts: control system for a motor arranged in the lens barrel; therefore considered to be a zoom speed commander that issues a command for zoom speed according to the operating member, ring/lever, relative to the lens barrel, the first and second member respectively).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of Santo to incorporate the teachings of Hamasaki and provide a lens barrel further comprising: a zoom speed commander that issues a command for a zoom speed of electric zoom according to relative movement of the first member and the second member. Doing so would allow for the zoom speed to be intuitively controlled based on user operation amount and direction, thereby improving operability and enabling more precise and responsive electric zoom control.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Santo et al. (US 2013/0027789, of record) in view of Hamasaki (US 5,223,982), as applied to claim 11 above, in view of Kramer et al. (US 2010/0066676).
Regarding claim 12, the modified Santo discloses the lens barrel according to claim 11, wherein the first member is provided along the outer periphery of the lens barrel body in a rotationally movable manner.
Santo fails to disclose a lens barrel wherein the zoom speed commander has a dead zone where a level difference between the first surface and the second surface is generated by rotational movement of the first member in a first direction or a second direction opposite to the first direction from the reference position, while the zoom speed to be commanded does not change from zero. Santo and Kramer are related because both disclose optical control systems.
Kramer teaches a lens barrel wherein the zoom speed commander has a dead zone where a level difference between the first surface and the second surface is generated by rotational movement of the first member in a first direction or a second direction opposite to the first direction from the reference position, while the zoom speed to be commanded does not change from zero ([0074] teaches: a small dead zone, within which movement has no effect; therefore considered to be analogous to first and second member rotation and counter rotation, along with level difference in reference position, with a dead zone integrated into the mechanism).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of Santo to incorporate the teachings of Kramer and provide a lens barrel wherein the zoom speed commander has a dead zone where a level difference between the first surface and the second surface is generated by rotational movement of the first member in a first direction or a second direction opposite to the first direction from the reference position, while the zoom speed to be commanded does not change from zero. Doing so would allow for better stability of zoom operation and prevent inadvertent zooming, thereby improving the overall functionality and quality of the optical system.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Santo et al. (US 2013/0027789, of record), as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Oikawa (US 2011/0069403).
Regarding claim 15, Santo discloses the lens barrel according to claim 1.
Santo fails to disclose a lens barrel wherein the first surface and the second surface are configured of inclined surfaces. Santo and Oikawa are related because both disclose lens barrel controls.
Oikawa teaches a lens barrel wherein the first surface and the second surface are configured of inclined surfaces ([0075] teaches: incline driving cam rings; Examiner notes that the cam rings are analogous to the rings of Santo).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of Santo to incorporate the teachings of Oikawa and provide a lens barrel wherein the first surface and the second surface are configured of inclined surfaces. Doing so would allow for converting rotational movement into axial movement in a smooth and controlled manner, thereby improving stability and control of zoom operations of the optical system.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Santo et al. (US 2013/0027789, of record), as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Araki et al. (US 2014/0169781).
Regarding claim 16, Santo discloses the lens barrel according to claim 1 with a third member (Examiner notes that the side of 280, ring adjacent to 234, focus ring is considered the third member)
Santo fails to disclose a lens barrel that performs a zoom operation at a fixed speed. Santo and Araki are related because both disclose lens barrel controls.
Araki teaches a lens barrel that performs a zoom operation at a fixed speed ([0061] teaches: zoom motor rotates at a rotation speed corresponding to the resistance value; therefore considered a fixes value, as it is set according to the resistance value).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of Santo to incorporate the teachings of Araki and provide a lens barrel that performs a zoom operation at a fixed speed. Doing so would allow for converting rotational movement into axial movement in a smooth and controlled manner, thereby improving stability and control of zoom operations of the optical system.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Santo et al. (US 2013/0027789, of record) in view of Araki et al. (US 2014/0169781) , as applied to claim 16 above, in view of Maruyama et al. (US 4,816,859).
Regarding claim 17, Santo discloses the lens barrel according to claim 16.
Sato fails to disclose a lens barrel wherein the third member is a zoom switch that is provided in the second member to issue an instruction to perform zoom-up and zoom-down. Sato and Maruyama are related because both disclose zoom lens controls.
Maruyama teaches a lens barrel wherein the third member (Col. 3, lines 20-25 teach: 15, zoom lever, analogous to the third member) is a zoom switch that is provided in the second member (Col. 3, lines 20-25 teach: 14, zoom ring, analogous to the second member) to issue an instruction to perform zoom-up and zoom-down (Col. 3, lines 35-40 teach: zoom ring is rotated by 15, zoom lever; Examiner notes that a lever on a ring is considered a classic “command member” for zooming as the claim does not require electrical, only a zoom switch; therefore under BRI, 15 zoom lever is considered the zoom switch to issue instructions for zooming).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of Sato to incorporate the teachings of Maruyama and provide a lens barrel wherein the third member is a zoom switch that is provided in the second member to issue an instruction to perform zoom-up and zoom-down. Doing so would allow for intuitive zoom up and down operation directly from the zoom ring, thereby improving ease of use of the lens barrel.
Claims 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Santo et al. (US 2013/0027789, of record) in view of Araki et al. (US 2014/0169781) , as applied to claim 16 above, in view of Turcotte (US 2021/0218902).
Regarding claim 18, Santo discloses the lens barrel according to claim 16, further comprising: a cylindrical-shaped fourth member ([0024] discloses: 234, focus ring) that is rotatably disposed along the outer periphery of the lens barrel body (Figures 6 and 7 collectively depicts: 234, focus ring, rotatable disposed along the outer periphery of 290, lens barrel).
Santo fails to disclose a lens barrel comprising a zoom position commander that issues a command for a zoom position of electric zoom according to a rotation amount of the fourth member. Santo and Turcotte are related because both disclose optical systems.
Turcotte teaches a lens barrel comprising a zoom position commander that issues a command for a zoom position of electric zoom according to a rotation amount of the fourth member ([0081] teaches: automated rotation control of focus ring).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of Santo to incorporate the teachings of Turcotte and provide a lens barrel comprising a zoom position commander that issues a command for a zoom position of electric zoom according to a rotation amount of the fourth member. Doing so would allow electrically commanding a zoom position that results in controlled axial movement of lens groups, thereby improving precision and controllability of zoom operation of the optical system.
Regarding claim 19, Santo discloses the lens barrel according to claim 18.
Santo fails to disclose a lens barrel wherein the first member, the third member, and the fourth member are disposed adjacent to each other in an order of the fourth member, the first member, and the third member from an objective side of the lens barrel body. However, choosing lens names and placement is considered is a design choice and well within the bounds of normal experimentation. See MPEP 2144.04, In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960), In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975), and In re Gazda, 219 F.2d 449, 104 USPQ 400 (CCPA 1955). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to design choice to disclose a lens barrel wherein the first member, the third member, and the fourth member are disposed adjacent to each other in an order of the fourth member, the first member, and the third member from an objective side of the lens barrel body since it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable designs by routine experimentation. Since applicant has not disclosed that designing the lens barrel rings in the particular order described in the instant application solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose. Moreover, it appears that the invention would perform equally well with any number of different ring placements, and success in doing so would have been predictable. Therefore, the claimed use of a lens barrel wherein the first member, the third member, and the fourth member are disposed adjacent to each other in an order of the fourth member, the first member, and the third member from an objective side of the lens barrel body represents a routine variation within the skill of the art.
Regarding claim 20, Santo discloses the lens barrel according to claim 18, wherein the first member ([0078] discloses: 280, ring) and the fourth member ([0024] discloses: 234, focus ring) have outer diameters similar to each other to such a degree that the outer diameters are felt to be equal to each other by a sense of tactile of a gripping finger (Figure 6 depicts: 234, focus ring and 280, ring, having outer diameters similar to each other to such a degree that the out diameters are felt to be equal to each other by a sense of tactile of a gripping finger).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 13 and 14 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 13, the prior art fails to teach “wherein the first member is rotationally moved within a range of a first stroke angle, and a second stroke angle set in the dead zone is smaller than the first stroke angle” along with the structural limitations positively recited in claims 12, 11 and 1, in a manner that would be appropriate under 35 U.S.C. § 102 or § 103 and consistent with search requirements outlined in MPEP § 904.
Regarding claim 14, the prior art fails to teach “wherein the level difference between the first surface and the second surface at a boundary of the dead zone is equal to or larger than a concave-convex that is detectable by a sense of tactile of a finger, and the concave-convex is within a range obtained by adding a total of errors including a manufacturing error and an individual difference in detection” along with the structural limitations positively recited in claim 12, 11 and 1, in a manner that would be appropriate under 35 U.S.C. § 102 or § 103 and consistent with search requirements outlined in MPEP § 904.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Okada (US 2016/0202448), Iikawa et al. (US 2012/0075720), Koyama et al. (US 2009/0059400) and Sato et al. (US 2002/0024747) all disclose relevant optical systems but fails to remedy the deficiencies of the prior art.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to John Sipes whose telephone number is (703)756-1372. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 6:00 - 11:00 and 1:00 - 6:00.
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, Bumsuk Won can be reached at (571) 272-2713. 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.
/J.C.S./Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/BUMSUK WON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872