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 Objections
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: the last word “prat” appears to be typographical error intended to mean “part,” and will be examined as such. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-6 and are 10 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Minamisawa (US 20180284567).
Regarding claim 1, Minamisawa An optical stabilization structure (title, abst – optical unit with shake correction; Figs. 1-4), comprising (i.e., open language for the claim, MPEP 2111.03):
a fixing component (Figs. 1-2: 8 – fixing member; further defined by the following limitations) providing an accommodating space (note structure in Figs. 1-2), and
the fixing component (8-fixing member; see para. 40 – fixing member 8 has ) comprising (i.e., open language for the fixing component, MPEP 2111.03):
a bottom plate (30 – casing, lower portion);
a first annular sidewall (28 & 29 - casing) of which a bottom is adjacent (i.e., interpreted as near; direct contact is not claimed) to the bottom plate (i.e., Fig. 2, note that 30 and 28-29 are adjacent and in direct contact),
wherein the bottom of the first annular sidewall is orthogonally connected to the bottom plate to constitute the accommodating space (Fig. 2: note that the lower portion of casing 30 is in the horizontal direction while the whole of casing 28+29 is vertical; they car connected via the upper portion of 30), and
an inner sidewall of the first annular sidewall has a contact surface (note that the inner elements of the device have contact with other elements, see Fig. 2);
a movable component (defined by the following limitations) disposed in the accommodating space (Fig 2, casing 28 & 29 encompass), and
the movable component comprising (i.e., open language for the movable component, MPEP 2111.03):
a second annular sidewall (84 – opposing part) disposed in the accommodating space, wherein an outer sidewall of the second annular sidewall has an abutting surface (90 - annular groove);
wherein the abutting surface matches the contact surface by point contact (via retainer 152 including projection part 155), and
the abutting surface is configured to be slidable relative to the contact surface (para. 69 – “A center portion in the circumferential direction of the second projection part 155 is capable of coming into sliding contact with an edge portion on the inner circumferential side and an edge portion on the outer circumferential side of the holder side annular groove 90 in the holder side opposing part 84.”).
Regarding claim 2, the reference further discloses The optical stabilization structure as claimed in claim 1, wherein the contact surface is a plane (i.e., groove 90 and opposing part 84 are plane), and the abutting surface is a spherical surface (retainer 152 also includes balls 151).
Regarding claim 3, the reference further discloses 3. The optical stabilization structure as claimed in claim 1, wherein the contact surface is a spherical surface (retainer 152 also includes balls 151), and the abutting surface is a plane (i.e., groove 90 and opposing part 84 are plane) with a protruding point (i.e., the rim of 84 protrudes to an approximate vertical point, i.e., a portion narrower than the lower portion; note the claim does not quantify the degree of the point).
Regarding claim 4, the reference further discloses 4. The optical stabilization structure as claimed in claim 2, wherein the second annular sidewall comprises an upper annular sidewall and a lower annular sidewall (Figs. 2-4 – note how inner parts fit into outer parts), the upper annular sidewall has an upper trench, the lower annular sidewall has a lower trench, and an opening of the upper trench matches an opening of the lower trench to constitute an accommodating part (Figs. 2-4 – note how inner parts fit into outer parts).
Regarding claim 5, the reference further discloses 5. The optical stabilization structure as claimed in claim 4, further comprising: an elastic piece (Fig. 6: 9-plate spring) disposed on [i.e., supported indirectly by] the fixing component (8 – fixing member) and contacting the abutting surface elastically (142 – side linking part).
Regarding claim 6, the reference further discloses 6. The optical stabilization structure as claimed in claim 5, wherein one end of the elastic piece is disposed on the fixing component and extends toward an outer sidewall of the second annular sidewall, and the elastic piece bends to constitute a bend part accordingly, and after constituting the bend part, the elastic piece extends along the outer sidewall of the second annular sidewall to constitute an another end of the elastic piece (Fig. 6: 9-plate spring, note relative portions surrounding open center).
Regarding claim 10, the reference further discloses 10. The optical stabilization structure as claimed in claim 6, wherein the elastic piece comprises a through hole disposed at the bend part and passing through a portion of the bend part (Fig. 6: 9-plate spring, note opening at center).
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:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. 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.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Minamisawa.
Regarding claim 8, Minamisawa does not disclose that The optical stabilization structure as claimed in claim 5, wherein a number of elastic piece is three, and the three elastic pieces are equidistant from each other; a number of contact surfaces is three, and the three contact surfaces are equidistant from each other.
However, it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8 (1977). The benefit here of duplication of the elastic part is to increase adjustability via the additional flex to the system to correct for harder hits/jostles to the device.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add multiple springs (Fig. 6: 9) to increase adjustability via the additional flex to the system to correct for harder hits/jostles to the device.
Allowable Subject Matter
Regarding claim 7, the prior art does not teach or suggest “The optical stabilization structure as claimed in claim 6, wherein the another end of the elastic piece has an elastic abutting surface which is a plane, the abutting surface contacts the elastic abutting surface by the point contact,” including the specific arrangement for “and the abutting surface is configured to be slidable relative to the elastic abutting surface.” as set forth in the claimed combination(s).
With respect to claim 11, this claim depends on claim 7 and is allowable at least for the reasons stated supra.
Regarding claim 9, the prior art does not teach or suggest “The optical stabilization structure as claimed in claim 5, wherein the first annular sidewall has a fixing part, the fixing part is constituted by recessing from a top of a part of the first annular sidewall to the bottom of the first annular sidewall,” including the specific arrangement for “the contact surfaces is disposed on an inner sidewall of the fixing part and the elastic piece is disposed on a top of the fixing prat” as set forth in the claimed combination(s).
With respect to claims 12-16, these claims depend on claim 9 and are allowable at least for the reasons stated supra.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNIFER D. CARRUTH whose telephone number is (571)272-9791, who can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 9:00 AM - 4:00 PM ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone 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 Supervisory Examiner Carruth by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Director Allana L Bidder, can be reached on 571-272-5560. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JENNIFER D. CARRUTH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2871
Prosecution Insights