CTNF 18/887,584 CTNF 93071 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Priority 02-26 AIA Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 09/17/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner. Drawings 06-22 AIA The drawings are objected to because the drawings do not include the reference character or sign for “a holding member” specified in claim 18 . Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance. 06-27 AIA In addition to Replacement Sheets containing the corrected drawing figure(s), applicant is required to submit a marked-up copy of each Replacement Sheet including annotations indicating the changes made to the previous version. The marked-up copy must be clearly labeled as “Annotated Sheets” and must be presented in the amendment or remarks section that explains the change(s) to the drawings. See 37 CFR 1.121(d)(1). Failure to timely submit the proposed drawing and marked-up copy will result in the abandonment of the application. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-02 AIA 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. 07-34-01 Claims 1-17 are 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 1 recites the limitation “the biasing member and an optical axis center are longer than a distance between a center of the guide bar and the optical axis center”. The meaning of an optical axis center being longer than the distance between a center of the guide bar and the optical axis center is unclear. Did the applicant intend to claim “a distance between the biasing member and an optical axis center are longer than a distance between a center of the guide bar and the optical axis center”? Or did the applicant intend to claim “the biasing member is longer than a distance between a center of the guide bar and the optical axis center”? Thereby as being indefinite, claim 1 fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter. For examination purposes, examiner has interpreted “the biasing member and an optical axis center are longer than a distance between a center of the guide bar and the optical axis center” to be “a distance between the biasing member and an optical axis center are longer than a distance between a center of the guide bar and the optical axis center” based on Figure 5. Claims 2-17 are rejected because they depend upon claim 1; they are likewise rejected under the same rationale as that set forth above with respect to claim 1. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 1-17 are objected to as being rejected under 35 USC §112(b) set forth above, but would be allowable if the claims are rewritten to overcome said rejections. 13-03-01 AIA The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Regarding claim 1 , Kitano et al. (WO 2022201702 A1, the English translation document attached; hereinafter “Kitano”) disclose a lens barrel (Figs. 1-6; see Page 2 lines 1-8, identifying the embodiment shown in Figs. 1-6) comprising: a lens (L3; Page 3 line 15); a barrel (F3 in Fig. 3(A); Page 3 lines 16-17 “third lens group L3 is held by the lens holding frame F3”) that holds the lens and is movable in a direction along an optical axis (Page 3 lines 19-20 “a lens holding frame movable in the direction of the optical axis OA”), a base member (20 in Fig. 2(A); Page 3 lines 23-24) that has a cylindrical shape and is positioned on an outer periphery of the barrel; a guide bar (22; Page 3 line 23) of which at least one end is fixed to the base member (Fig. 2 and Page 14 line 7 “the guide bar 22 is fixed to the second fixed barrel 20”); and a guide unit (35A in Fig. 5; Page 6 line 9) having a biasing member (351 in Figs. 3 and 6; Page 6 lines 4-6 “the biasing mechanism 35A biases the lens holding frame F3 against the guide bar 22” ) fixed to the barrel by a fixing portion (see Figs. 3(A)-(B)) and configured to bias a first rotating element and a second rotating element (311a and 311b; Page 6 lines 5-6 “so that the first bearing 311a and the second bearing 311b are pressed against the guide bar 22) to the guide bar, wherein, on a plane perpendicular to the optical axis, distances between a first contact that is a point where the guide bar and the first rotating element are in contact with each other, a second contact that is a point where the guide bar and the second rotating element are in contact with each other, and a distance between the biasing member and an optical axis center are longer than a distance between a center of the guide bar and the optical axis center (see 112(b) rejections above) (see Fig. 5), the guide unit overlaps the base member (Fig. 2), and the biasing member is disposed between the first contact and the second contact as viewed along the optical axis (Fig. 5). However, Kitano fails to explicitly disclose, in light of the specification, “the guide unit overlaps the base member as viewed along the optical axis”. The examiner further considered Kudoh et al. (US 20110096203, hereinafter “Kudoh”), Masuki et al. (US 20210033817, hereinafter “Masuki”) and Nagaoka et al. (US 20230393364, hereinafter “Nagaoka”). For example. Kudoh teaches a guide unit (3a, 3, 6 in Fig. 7) overlaps a base member (8) as viewed along the optical axis, but fails to disclose the first contact and the second contact as required in the claim. The prior art of Kitano, Kudoh, Masuki and Nagaoka, applied alone or in combination fails to teach or suggest the combination and arrangement of elements recited in Applicant's claim 1. Dependent claims 2-17 are allowable by virtue of their dependence on claim 1 . Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN Y JUNG whose telephone number is (469)295-9076. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday, 9:00 am - 5:00 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, Michael H Caley can be reached on (571)272-2286. 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. /JONATHAN Y JUNG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871 Application/Control Number: 18/887,584 Page 2 Art Unit: 2871 Application/Control Number: 18/887,584 Page 3 Art Unit: 2871 Application/Control Number: 18/887,584 Page 4 Art Unit: 2871 Application/Control Number: 18/887,584 Page 5 Art Unit: 2871 Application/Control Number: 18/887,584 Page 6 Art Unit: 2871 Application/Control Number: 18/887,584 Page 7 Art Unit: 2871
Prosecution Insights