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
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. 17026866, filed on 9/21/2020.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 8/12/2024, 8/29/2024, 2/7/2025, and 8/25/2026 are 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.
Claim(s) 15-29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ishikawa (20130107105) hereafter Ishikawa.
Regarding claims 15, 28, and 29, Tsukamoto discloses an optical apparatus comprising: a first driver (19B) configured to move a focus lens (41) in an optical axis direction (shown in fig. 5); a second driver (18B) configured to move the first driver (19B) in the optical axis direction (fig. 5); and a controller (23B) configured to control driving of the first driver (19B), wherein both the first driver (19B) and the second driver (18B) move the focus lens (41) during zooming, and wherein the controller (23B) controls driving of the first driver (18B) based on a moving amount of the first driver by the second driver (fig. 5, par. [0064]-[0073]).
Regarding claim 16, Tsukamoto discloses the optical apparatus according to claim 15, further comprising a position detector configured to detect a position of the focus lens, wherein the controller controls driving of the first driver based on a moving amount of the first driver by the second driver and the position of the focus lens detected by the position detector (fig. 5, par. [0064]-[0073]).
Regarding claim 17, Tsukamoto discloses the optical apparatus according to claim 15, wherein the controller determines a first target focus position that is a target position of the focus lens using first data relating to an in-focus position of the focus lens corresponding to the zoom position and an estimated zoom position that is estimated to be a zoom position after a predetermined time passes, and wherein the controller controls driving of the first driver using the first target focus position and a first moving amount that is estimated to be a moving amount of the first driver by the second driver after the predetermined time passes (fig. 5, par. [0064]-[0073]).
Regarding claim 18, Tsukamoto discloses the optical apparatus according to claim 17, wherein the controller calculates a driving amount of the focus lens by the first driver based on the position of the focus lens detected by the position detector, the first target focus position, and the first moving amount, and controls driving of the first driver based on the driving amount (fig. 5, par. [0064]-[0073]).
Regarding claim 19, Tsukamoto discloses the optical apparatus according to claim 15, wherein the first driver includes a movable part configured to move the focus lens, wherein the controller determines a first target driving position that is a target position of the focus lens within a movable range of the focus lens in the first driver using second data relating to an in-focus position of the movable part of the first driver corresponding to the zoom position, and an estimated zoom position that is estimated to be a zoom position after a predetermined time passes, and wherein the controller controls driving of the first driver using the first target driving position and a second moving amount as a moving amount of the first driver by the second driver (fig. 5, par. [0064]-[0073]).
Regarding claim 20, Tsukamoto discloses the optical apparatus according to claim 19, wherein the controller calculates a current position of the focus lens within a movable range of the focus lens in the first driver using the second moving amount and the position of the focus lens detected by the position detector, and controls driving of the first driver based on the first target driving position and the current position (fig. 5, par. [0064]-[0073]).
Regarding claim 21, Tsukamoto discloses the optical apparatus according to claim 15, wherein the controller controls driving of the first driver using the position of the focus lens detected by the position detector and a second target focus position that is a target position of the focus lens, and wherein the second target focus position is determined based on a second moving amount as a moving amount of the first driver by the second driver and the second target driving position that is the target position of the focus lens within a movable range of the focus lens in the first driver (fig. 5, par. [0064]-[0073]).
Regarding claim 22, Tsukamoto discloses the optical apparatus according to claim 21, wherein the controller controls driving of the first driver based on a deviation between the position of the focus lens detected by the position detector and the second target focus position (fig. 5, par. [0064]-[0073]).
Regarding claim 23, Tsukamoto discloses the optical apparatus according to claim 15, wherein the controller controls driving of the first driver using a second target driving position that is a target position of the focus lens within a movable range of the focus lens in the first driver, and a current position of the focus lens within a movable range of the focus lens in the first driver, and wherein the current position is calculated using a second moving amount as a moving amount of the first driver by the second driver, and the position of the focus lens detected by the position detector (fig. 5, par. [0064]-[0073]).
Regarding claim 24, Tsukamoto discloses the optical apparatus according to claim 23, wherein the controller controls driving of the first driver based on a deviation between the current position and the second target driving position (fig. 5, par. [0064]-[0073]).
Regarding claim 25, Tsukamoto discloses the optical apparatus according to claim 21, further comprising a movable part detector configured to detect a position of a movable part relative to a base part in the first driver, wherein the controller acquires the second moving amount using the position of the focus lens detected by the position detector and the position of the movable part detected by the movable part detector (fig. 5, par. [0064]-[0073]).
Regarding claim 26, Tsukamoto discloses the optical apparatus according to claim 15, wherein the first driver includes a motor, and wherein the second driver includes a cam mechanism configured to move the first driver by a cam (fig. 5, par. [0064]-[0073]).
Regarding claim 27, Tsukamoto discloses the optical apparatus according to claim 15, wherein each of the first driver and the second driver includes a motor (fig. 5, par. [0064]-[0073]).
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.
Claims 15-29 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-14 of U.S. Patent No. 12117667 hereafter Homma. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1-14 of Homma read on or make obvious claims 15-29 of the instant invention.
Regarding claim 15, Homma discloses an optical apparatus comprising: a first driver configured to move a focus lens in an optical axis direction; a second driver configured to move the first driver in the optical axis direction; and a controller configured to control driving of the first driver, wherein both the first driver and the second driver move the focus lens during zooming, and wherein the controller controls driving of the first driver based on a moving amount of the first driver by the second driver (see claim 1).
Regarding claim 28, Homma discloses a control method of an optical apparatus that includes a first driver configured to move a focus lens in an optical axis direction, and a second driver configured to move the first driver in the optical axis direction, wherein both the first driver and the second driver move the focus lens during zooming, the control method comprising: acquiring a moving amount of the first driver by the second driver; and controlling driving of the first driver based on the moving amount of the first driver by the second driver (see claim 13).
Regarding claim 29, Homma discloses a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a computer program that causes to execute a control method a computer in an optical apparatus that includes a first driver configured to move a focus lens in an optical axis direction, and a second driver configured to move the first driver in the optical axis direction, wherein both the first driver and the second driver move the focus lens during zooming, wherein the control method comprising: acquiring a moving amount of the first driver by the second driver; and controlling driving of the first driver based on the moving amount of the first driver by the second driver (see claim 14).
Regarding claims 16-27, Homma discloses the limitations therein (see claims 2-12).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES JONES whose telephone number is (571)270-1278. The examiner can normally be reached 7:00 am - 4:00 pm.
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, Pinping Sun can be reached at (571) 270-1284. 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.
/JAMES C. JONES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights