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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 18/761,312 in view of Stanford, et al. (US 2008/0013262).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Current Application U.S. Application No. 18/761,312
1. A blade open-close device, comprising: an elongated member having an opening on an optical axis of an optical unit and extending in an intersecting direction intersecting with a direction in which the optical axis of the optical unit extends;
a blade on the elongated member, the blade being movable in the intersecting direction to open and close the opening;
a drive configured to move the blade to one of a closed position to close the opening or an open position to open the opening;
a body to which the elongated member, the blade, and the drive are attached; and
1. A blade open-close device, comprising: an elongated member having an opening on an optical axis of an optical unit and extending in an intersecting direction intersecting with an optical axis direction in which the optical axis of the optical unit extends;
a blade movable in the intersecting direction, the blade being configured to cover or uncover the opening;
a drive configured to move the blade to one of a closing position to cover the opening or an opening position to uncover the opening;
a transmission member configured to transmit a driving force generated by the drive to the blade;
a body in which the elongated member, the blade, the drive, and the transmission member are located;
and a restrictor configured to restrict movement of the blade in the intersecting direction, wherein the elongated member and the transmission member are located between the body and the blade in the optical axis direction, the body has a facing surface facing the elongated member and the transmission member, and the restrictor is located on the facing surface.
Thus, the current claims are broader and thus fully met by the claim of Patent Application No. 18/761,312, except the claims of Application No. 18/761,312 do not set forth the limitation “a mount to which the body is attached in a detachable manner.”
However, the use of a mount for a camera body to attach in a detachable manner was well known in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention as taught by Stanford (See Figure 3 and paragraph 0013). Thus, it would have been obvious to on having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the claim of U.S. Application No. 18/761,312 to include a mount to which the body is attached in a detachable manner in order to connect the camera module (i.e., blade open-close device) to a laptop computer.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 5 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sawanobori, et a. (US 2022/0091478).
Regarding claim 1, Sawanobori discloses “an elongated member (Fig. 2, ref.# 30) having an opening (Fig. 2, ref.# 31) on an optical axis of an optical unit and extending in an intersecting direction intersecting with a direction in which the optical axis (Fig. 2, ref.# P) of the optical unit extends; a blade (Fig. 2, ref.# 50) on the elongated member, the blade being movable in the intersecting direction to open and close the opening (Figs. 7A, 7B); a drive (Fig. 2, ref.# 20) configured to move the blade to one of a closed position to close the opening or an open position to open the opening; a body (Fig. 2, ref.# 10) to which the elongated member, the blade, and the drive are attached; and a mount (Fig. 1, ref.# 2; paragraphs 0026, 00027, 0038: a mounting structure, i.e, “a mount”, such as solder joints, etc. is necessary to mount the body to the substrate board 2) to which the body is attached in a detachable manner.”
Regarding claim 5, Sawanobori discloses “wherein the drive (Fig. 2, ref.# 20) includes a winding, a rotor, and a yoke, and the body includes a winding mount to which the winding is attached, a first housing accommodating the rotor, and a second housing accommodating the yoke.” (Fig. 4; paragraph 0032)
Regarding claim 6, Sawanobori discloses “the blade open-close device according to claim 1 (See Claim 1 above); and a substrate (Fig.1, ref.# 2) to which the mount included in the blade open-close device is fastened (paragraphs 0026, 00027, 0038).”
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.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sawanobori, et a. (US 2022/0091478) in view of Han, et al. (US 2023/0208057).
Regarding claim 2, Sawanobori “a connection terminal electrically connected to the drive (paragraph 0037: “terminal plates 110 and 120 are metal plates”). Sawanobori does not specifically teach that “the connection terminal comprising an elastic material”. However, the use of a connection terminal that comprises an elastic material was well known in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention as taught by Han (See Fig. 3J, 3K, ref.#s 420, 422). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use terminal comprising an elastic material in order to ensure a proper connection of the terminal as shown in Han, Fig. 3L)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-4 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
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Lin, et al. (US 11,977,318), Su, et al. (US 2023/0236477), Wang, et al. (US 11,226,466) and Sawanobori (US 2022/0091479)1 teach an elongated bade open-close device.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RODNEY FULLER whose telephone number is (571)272-2118. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 am - 4:30 pm, Monday - Friday.
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.
/RODNEY E FULLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2852
March 6, 2026