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 8/26/2024 was filed 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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the adjustment" in line 3 and it is unclear if the adjustment is related to a position or degree of inclination associated with the second frame, rendering the claim vague and indefinite. Furthermore, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim as there is only previous mention of said second frame is adjustable. For purpose of examination, it was presumed applicant intended to disclose --due to a position and/or degree of inclination adjustment--.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
Claim(s) 1, 2 ,4, 7-9, 12, 13, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Shinohara et al (US 2003/0128973 A1).
In regard to claim 1, Shinohara et al discloses a lens barrel (page 2, section [0045] – page 3, section [0054], Figures 1, 4, & 10, “50”) comprising: a first frame (page 3, section [0057], Figure 3, “15,” re: fixing cylinder); a second frame that holds a lens positioned closest to an object side (page 3, section [0048], Figures 4 & 10, “6, L1”) , that is accommodated in the first frame (Figure 4, “15”), and of which a position and/or a degree of inclination is adjustable with respect to the first frame (page 3, section [0048], Figure 4, “6” connected to moving cylinder “9” driven to move in the optical axis direction); and a third frame (page 4, section [0075] – page 5, section [0077], Figures 4 & 10, “1”) that is attached to the first frame (page 3, sections [0048] & [0057] and page 4, section [0075], Figure 4, re: “1” connected to filter frame “4” in front of the first lens group holding frame “6,” which is connected to moving cylinder “9,” which is connected to guide cylinder “30,” which is connected to fixing cylinder “15”) and that is disposed between an inner periphery of the first frame (Figure 4, “15”) and an outer periphery of the second frame as seen from the object side (Figures 4 & 10, “6”), wherein a first portion of the second frame that is positioned closest to the object side in an optical axis direction is disposed between a second portion of the third frame that is positioned closest to the object side and a third portion of the third frame that is positioned closest to an image side (see annotated Figure 10 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
464
612
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Shinohara et al discloses wherein the first portion is positioned at a position closer to the image side than the second portion is by a distance equal to or greater than a distance δ (see annotated Figure 10 below, note: value of δ is arbitrary).
PNG
media_image2.png
464
612
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4, Shinohara et al discloses wherein the first portion is positioned at a position closer to the image side than the second portion is by a distance equal to or greater than a distance ξ in a case where the position and/or the degree of inclination of the second frame is adjusted by a maximum adjustment amount (see annotated Figure 10 below, note: value of ξ is arbitrary and the distance between the first and second portions do not change with an adjustment as it is maintained by O ring (sealing member) “3”).
PNG
media_image2.png
464
612
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 7, Shinohara et al discloses wherein the third frame includes an annular projection portion provided at an inner peripheral portion of an end surface on the object side (see annotated Figure 10 below).
PNG
media_image3.png
372
542
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 8, Shinohara et al discloses wherein the projection portion of the third frame has a tapered shape of which a diameter decreases toward the object side (see annotated Figure 10 below).
PNG
media_image3.png
372
542
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 9, Shinohara et al discloses wherein an end portion of the second frame that is on the object side has a tapered shape of which a diameter decreases toward the image side (see annotated Figure 10 below).
PNG
media_image4.png
330
524
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 12, Shinohara et al discloses wherein the second frame includes the first portion provided at a portion adjacent to an inner periphery of the third frame as seen from the object side (see annotated Figure 10 below).
PNG
media_image2.png
464
612
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 13, Shinohara et al discloses wherein the first portion and the second portion are disposed to be adjacent to each other as seen from the object side (see annotated Figure 10 below).
PNG
media_image2.png
464
612
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 19, with the limitation, "wherein the third frame is a nameplate,” applicant merely sets forth a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention. It has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate that claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987). Since the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, it anticipates the claim.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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, 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) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shinohara et al.
Regarding claim 5, Shinohara et al discloses as set forth above, but does not specifically disclose wherein the distance ξ is 0.3 mm. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made for the distance ξ of Shinohara et al to be 0.3 mm, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claims 14-18, Shinohara et al discloses as set forth above, but does not specifically disclose wherein the first portion and the second portion have the same hue, wherein Munsell chroma values of the first portion and the second portion are equal to or smaller than a threshold value, wherein a hue difference related to a hue ring in Munsell color system between the first portion and the second portion is equal to or smaller than a threshold value, wherein lightness of the first portion and the second portion of the second frame and the third frame is relatively high, or wherein lightness of the first portion and the second portion is relatively higher than lightness of an outer peripheral surface of the second frame and lightness of an inner peripheral surface of the third frame.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice for the first and second portions of Shinohara et al to comprise said color related values, since applicant has not disclosed that said color related values solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally well with various other related color values.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6, 10, and 11 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: The prior art fails to teach a combination of all the claimed features as presented in claim 6: a lens barrel as claimed, specifically wherein the third frame includes an annular recess portion provided at an inner peripheral portion as seen from the object side, and the first portion is positioned closer to the object side than a fourth portion of the recess portion that is positioned closest to the image side.
The prior art fails to teach a combination of all the claimed features as presented in claims 10 and 11: a lens barrel as claimed, specifically wherein the projection portion of the third frame has a stepped shape of which a diameter decreases toward the object side in a stepwise manner.
Claim 3 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, taking into account the presumption(s) made in the examination of the claim(s).
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art fails to teach a combination of all the claimed features as presented in claim 3: a lens barrel as claimed, specifically wherein a value that exceeds a maximum amount of displacement of the first portion in the optical axis direction that is caused due to a position and/or degree of inclination adjustment is set as the distance δ.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM C CHOI whose telephone number is (571)272-2324. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday, 9:00 am - 6:00 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.
/WILLIAM CHOI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872 June 12, 2026
Prosecution Insights