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 .
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.
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.
Claims 1-5, 20, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iijima (US 2008/0297924 A1) in view of Takehana (US 2014/0333907 A1).
In regard to claim 1, Iijima discloses a lens apparatus 1 (denoted “camera”, see e.g. paragraph [0024] and Figures 1-2) comprising (see e.g. Figures 1-2):
a first unit L1 (denoted “first lens unit”, see e.g. paragraph [0025] and Figures 1-2);
a second unit L2 (denoted “second lens unit”, see e.g. paragraph [0025] and Figures 1-2);
a cam barrel 40 (see e.g. paragraph [0025] and Figures 1-2); and
a guide barrel 50 (denoted “rectilinear guide barrel”, see e.g. paragraph [0025] and Figures 1-2),
wherein the cam barrel 40 has a first cam groove 43 for moving the first unit L1 in an optical axis direction and a second cam groove 44 for moving the second unit L3 in the optical axis direction (see e.g. paragraph [0038]),
wherein the second unit L2 has a base unit and a holder unit (see e.g. annotated Figure 2 below where the portions of L2 are not individually labeled), wherein the holder unit is disposed closer to the first unit than the base unit L1 in the optical axis direction (see e.g. annotated Figure 2 below), and
wherein as the lens apparatus 1 transitions from an imaging state to a non-imaging state (see e.g. Figures 1-2 and paragraphs [0069]-[0070]) and, due to an action of the cam barrel 40 and the guide barrel 50, the first unit L1 moves closer to the second unit L2, and the second unit L2 moves closer to the first unit L1, so that the holder unit and the first unit L1 contact with each other (see e.g. Figure 1, where the first unit and second unit are in contact, thus the holder is in contact).
The limitation, “wherein as the lens apparatus transitions from an imaging state to a non-imaging state and, due to an action of the cam barrel and the guide barrel, the first unit moves closer to the second unit, and the second unit moves closer to the first unit, so that the holder unit and the first unit contact with each other” is functional in nature. Such a functional limitation is only given patentable weight insofar as it imparts a structural limitation. Here, the device Iijima et al. discloses an apparatus in which the lens apparatus transitions between an imaging and non-imaging state due to the actions of the barrels, moving the first and second units closer together, placing them in contact.
Iijima fails to explicitly disclose
wherein the guide barrel has a first guide groove for restricting the first unit from rotating around an optical axis and a second guide groove for restricting the second unit from rotating around the optical axis.
However, Takehana discloses (see e.g. paragraph [0133] and Figure 4):
wherein the guide barrel 52 (see e.g. paragraph [0069] and Figure 4) has a first guide groove 523 for restricting the first unit 61 from rotating around an optical axis and a second guide groove 523 for restricting the second unit 62 from rotating around the optical axis (see e.g. paragraph [0069] where the linear groove of the guide barrel restricts movements of 61, 62 via cam pins 612, 622).
Given the teachings of Takehana, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Iijima with wherein the guide barrel has a first guide groove for restricting the first unit from rotating around an optical axis and a second guide groove for restricting the second unit from rotating around the optical axis.
Providing the guide barrel restricting the movement of multiple units would allow for a smaller device by reduction in the number of barrels.
PNG
media_image1.png
876
868
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In regard to claim 2, Iijima discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and
wherein when the lens apparatus transitions from the imaging state to the non-imaging state, the holder unit moves together with the first unit to approach the base unit (Note that this limitation is condition in nature due to the use of the conditional word “when”. It is further noted that the limitation is at least satisfied for a situation in which the lens apparatus in not transitioning from the imaging state to the non-imaging state.).
In regard to claim 3, Iijima discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and
wherein the holder unit holds a lens (see e.g. annotated Figure 2, above), and wherein the base unit holds followers 71 (see e.g. annotated Figure 2, above, and paragraph [0038]).
In regard to claim 4, Iijima discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and
wherein the first unit L1 and the second unit L2 are closest to each other at one end in the imaging state (see e.g. paragraphs [0039]-[0040] and Figures 2-3).
In regard to claim 5, Iijima discloses the limitations as applied to claim 4 above, and
wherein the one end is a wide-angle end or a telephoto end (see e.g. paragraphs [0039]-[0040] and Figures 2-3).
In regard to claim 20, Iijima discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, but fails to disclose
wherein the first unit is disposed on an object side of the second unit.
However, Takehana discloses (see e.g. Figures 3-4):
wherein the first unit 61 is disposed on an object side of the second unit 62.
Given the teachings of Takehana, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Iijima with wherein the first unit is disposed on an object side of the second unit.
Doing so would provide a means for focusing on the object to be imaged.
In regard to claim 21, Iijima discloses an imaging system 1 comprises (see e.g. Figures 1-3):
a lens apparatus (see e.g. Figures 1-3); and
an image pickup apparatus 11 (denoted “CCD”, see e.g. paragraph [0028]),
wherein the lens apparatus includes:
a first unit L1 (denoted “first lens unit”, see e.g. paragraph [0025] and Figures 1-2);
a second unit L2 (denoted “second lens unit”, see e.g. paragraph [0025] and Figures 1-2);
a cam barrel 40 (see e.g. paragraph [0025] and Figures 1-2); and
a guide barrel 50 (denoted “rectilinear guide barrel”, see e.g. paragraph [0025] and Figures 1-2),
wherein the cam barrel 40 has a first cam groove 43 for moving the first unit L1 in an optical axis direction and a second cam groove 44 for moving the second unit L3 in the optical axis direction (see e.g. paragraph [0038]),
wherein the second unit L2 has a base unit and a holder unit (see e.g. annotated Figure 2 where the portions of L2 are not individually labeled), wherein the holder unit is disposed closer to the first unit than the base unit L1 in the optical axis direction (see e.g. annotated Figure 2), and
wherein as the lens apparatus 1 transitions from an imaging state to a non-imaging state (see e.g. Figures 1-2 and paragraphs [0069]-[0070]) and, due to an action of the cam barrel 40 and the guide barrel 50, the first unit L1 moves closer to the second unit L2, and the second unit L2 moves closer to the first unit L1, so that the holder unit and the first unit L1 contact with each other (see e.g. Figure 1, where the first unit and second unit are in contact, thus the holder is in contact).
The limitation, “wherein as the lens apparatus transitions from an imaging state to a non-imaging state and, due to an action of the cam barrel and the guide barrel, the first unit moves closer to the second unit, and the second unit moves closer to the first unit, so that the holder unit and the first unit contact with each other” is functional in nature. Such a functional limitation is only given patentable weight insofar as it imparts a structural limitation. Here, the device Iijima et al. discloses an apparatus in which the lens apparatus transitions between an imaging and non-imaging state due to the actions of the barrels, moving the first and second units closer together, placing them in contact.
Iijima fails to explicitly disclose
wherein the guide barrel has a first guide groove for restricting the first unit from rotating around an optical axis and a second guide groove for restricting the second unit from rotating around the optical axis.
However, Takehana discloses (see e.g. paragraph [0133] and Figure 4):
wherein the guide barrel 52 (see e.g. paragraph [0069] and Figure 4) has a first guide groove 523 for restricting the first unit 61 from rotating around an optical axis and a second guide groove 523 for restricting the second unit 62 from rotating around the optical axis (see e.g. paragraph [0069] where the linear groove of the guide barrel restricts movements of 61, 62 via cam pins 612, 622).
Given the teachings of Takehana, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Iijima with wherein the guide barrel has a first guide groove for restricting the first unit from rotating around an optical axis and a second guide groove for restricting the second unit from rotating around the optical axis.
Providing the guide barrel restricting the movement of multiple units would allow for a smaller device by reduction in the number of barrels.
Claims 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iijima (US 2008/0297924 A1) in view of Takehana (US 2014/0333907 A1) and further in view of Nomura et al. (US 2003/0081325 A1).
In regard to claim 6, Iijima, in view of Takehana, discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, but fails to disclose
wherein the second unit includes a first biasing member, and wherein the base unit and the holder unit are biased by the first biasing member in directions separating the base unit and the holder unit from each other.
However, Nomura et al. discloses (see e.g. Figure 1):
wherein the second unit (see e.g. annotated Figure 1 below) includes a first biasing member 42 (denoted “helical compression spring”, see e.g. paragraph [0120]), and wherein the base unit 13 (denoted “CCD holding frame”, see e.g. paragraph [0057]) and the holder unit 39 (denoted “third lens frame”, see e.g. paragraph [0083]) are biased by the first biasing member 42 in directions separating the base unit 13 and the holder unit 39 from each other.
Given the teachings of Nomura et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Iijima, in view of Takehana, with wherein the second unit includes a first biasing member, and wherein the base unit and the holder unit are biased by the first biasing member in directions separating the base unit and the holder unit from each other.
Doing so would provide a means for reducing backlash and play between the components (see e.g. paragraph [0006] of Nomura et al.).
PNG
media_image2.png
796
812
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In regard to claim 7, Iijima, in view of Takehana, discloses the limitations as applied to claim 6 above, but fails to disclose
wherein a biasing force of the first biasing member increases when the holder unit in contact with the first unit moves toward a first position together with the first unit so that the holder unit approaches the base unit, and the biasing force reduces as the holder unit moves from the first position toward a retracted end.
However, Nomura et al. discloses (see e.g. Figure 1):
wherein a biasing force of the first biasing member 42 increases when the holder unit 39 in contact with the first unit moves toward a first position together with the first unit so that the holder unit 39 approaches the base unit 13, and the biasing force reduces as the holder unit 39 moves from the first position toward a retracted end.
The limitation, “wherein a biasing force of the first biasing member increases when the holder unit in contact with the first unit moves toward a first position together with the first unit so that the holder unit approaches the base unit, and the biasing force reduces as the holder unit moves from the first position toward a retracted end” is functional in nature. Such a functional limitation is only given patentable weight insofar as it imparts a structural limitation. Here, the device Iijima, in view of Takehana and Nomura et al., is capable of being operated such that wherein a biasing force of the first biasing member increases when the holder unit in contact with the first unit moves toward a first position together with the first unit so that the holder unit approaches the base unit, and the biasing force reduces as the holder unit moves from the first position toward a retracted end.
Given the teachings of Nomura et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Iijima, in view of Takehana, with wherein a biasing force of the first biasing member increases when the holder unit in contact with the first unit moves toward a first position together with the first unit so that the holder unit approaches the base unit, and the biasing force reduces as the holder unit moves from the first position toward a retracted end.
Doing so would provide a means for reducing backlash and play between the components (see e.g. paragraph [0006] of Nomura et al.).
In regard to claim 8, Iijima, in view of Takehana, discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, but fails to disclose
wherein the second unit includes a guide shaft, and wherein the holder unit moves in the optical axis direction while being guided by the guide shaft.
However, Nomura et al. discloses (see e.g. claim 1):
wherein the second unit (see e.g. annotated Figure 1 below) includes a guide shaft 40, and wherein the holder unit 39 moves in the optical axis direction while being guided by the guide shaft 40.
Given the teaching of Nomura et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Iijima, in view of Takehana, with wherein the second unit includes a guide shaft, and wherein the holder unit moves in the optical axis direction while being guided by the guide shaft.
Doing so would provide a means for reducing backlash and play between the components (see e.g. paragraph [0006] of Nomura et al.).
Claims 9-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iijima (US 2008/0297924 A1) in view of Takehana (US 2014/0333907 A1) and further in view of Arakawa et al. (US 2013/0271860 A1).
In regard to claim 9¸ Iijima, in view of Takehana, discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, but fails to disclose
an operation member rotatable around the optical axis;
a click mechanism configured to lock a rotation of the operation member, wherein the click mechanism locks the rotation of the operation member near a phase where the holder unit contacts the first unit in the imaging state.
However, Arakawa et al. discloses (see e.g. Figures 1-2):
an operation member 24 (denoted “zoom ring”, see e.g. paragraph [0058] and Figure 1) rotatable around the optical axis (see e.g. paragraph [0062]);
a click mechanism configured to lock a rotation of the operation member 24 (see e.g. paragraph [0117]), wherein the click mechanism locks the rotation of the operation member near a phase where the holder unit contacts the first unit in the imaging state (see e.g. paragraph [0062] and [0117]).
Given the teachings of Arakawa et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Iijima, in view of Takehana, with an operation member rotatable around the optical axis; a click mechanism configured to lock a rotation of the operation member, wherein the click mechanism locks the rotation of the operation member near a phase where the holder unit contacts the first unit in the imaging state.
Doing so would provide a mechanism for moving the components between operation modes of the device.
In regard to claim 10, Iijima, in view of Takehana, discloses the limitations as applied to claim 9 above, but fails to disclose
wherein a rotation phase where the rotation of the operation member is locked by the click mechanism corresponds to a boundary between the imaging state and the non-imaging state.
However, Arakawa et al. discloses (see e.g. Figures 1-2):
wherein a rotation phase where the rotation of the operation member 24 is locked by the click mechanism corresponds to a boundary between the imaging state and the non-imaging state (see e.g. paragraphs [0062] and [0117] for switching between operational modes).
Given the teachings of Arakawa et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Iijima, in view of Takehana, with wherein a rotation phase where the rotation of the operation member is locked by the click mechanism corresponds to a boundary between the imaging state and the non-imaging state.
Doing so would provide a mechanism for moving the components between operation modes of the device.
In regard to claim 11, Iijima, in view of Takehana, discloses the limitations as applied to claim 10 above, but fails to disclose
wherein the boundary corresponds to one end in the imaging state.
However, Arakawa et al. discloses
wherein the boundary corresponds to one end in the imaging state (see e.g. paragraphs [0062] and [0117] for switching between operational modes and thus would correspond to one end in the imaging state).
Given the teachings of Arakawa et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Iijima, in view of Takehana, with wherein the boundary corresponds to one end in the imaging state.
Doing so would provide a mechanism for moving the components between operation modes of the device.
In regard to claim 12, Iijima, in view of Takehana, discloses the limitations, as applied to claim 9 above, but fails to disclose
wherein the second unit includes a first biasing member, and wherein a torque required for the operation member to rotate further from a rotation phase where the rotation of the operation member is locked by the click mechanism is smaller than a biasing force of the first biasing member.
However, Arakawa et al. discloses (see e.g. Figures 1-4):
wherein the second unit includes a first biasing member 33f (denoted “coil spring”, see e.g. paragraph [0097]), and wherein a torque required for the operation member to rotate further from a rotation phase where the rotation of the operation member is locked by the click mechanism is smaller than a biasing force of the first biasing member (see e.g. paragraph [0100] and [0278]).
Given the teachings of Arakawa et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Iijima, in view of Takehana, with wherein the second unit includes a first biasing member, and wherein a torque required for the operation member to rotate further from a rotation phase where the rotation of the operation member is locked by the click mechanism is smaller than a biasing force of the first biasing member.
Doing so would provide a mechanism for moving the components between operation modes of the device.
In regard to claim 13, Iijima, in view of Takehana, discloses the limitations as applied to claim 9 above, but fails to disclose
wherein the click mechanism has a concave portion at a position corresponding to a retracted end of the operation member.
However, Arakawa et al. discloses
wherein the click mechanism has a concave portion (i.e. click grooves, 25b, see e.g. paragraph [0118]) at a position corresponding to a retracted end of the operation member 24.
Given the teachings of Arakawa et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify
Doing so would provide a mechanism for moving the components between operation modes of the device.
In regard to claim 14, Iijima, in view of Takehana, discloses the limitations as applied to claim 9 above, but fails to disclose
wherein the click mechanism includes:
a fixed barrel that holds the operation member rotatably around the optical axis; an engagement member movably held on the fixed barrel; and
a second biasing member that biases the engagement member toward the operation member, wherein the operation member has a tapered portion, and wherein the engagement member rides up the tapered portion and thereby provides the operation member with a click feeling.
However, Arakawa et al. discloses
wherein the click mechanism includes (see e.g. Figure 3):
a fixed barrel 22 (denoted “main barrel”, see e.g. paragraph [0186]) that holds the operation member 24 rotatably around the optical axis;
an engagement member 26a movably held on the fixed barrel 22 (see e.g. paragraph [0186]); and
a second biasing member 252 that biases the engagement member 26a toward the operation member 24, wherein the operation member 24 has a tapered portion, and wherein the engagement member 26a rides up the tapered portion and thereby provides the operation member with a click feeling (see e.g. paragraph [0189]).
Given the teachings of Arakawa et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Iijima, in view of Takehana, with wherein the click mechanism includes: a fixed barrel that holds the operation member rotatably around the optical axis; an engagement member movably held on the fixed barrel; and a second biasing member that biases the engagement member toward the operation member, wherein the operation member has a tapered portion, and wherein the engagement member rides up the tapered portion and thereby provides the operation member with a click feeling.
Doing so would provide a mechanism for moving the components between operation modes of the device.
In regard to claim 15, Iijima, in view of Takehana and Arakawa et al., discloses the limitations as applied to claim 14 above, but fails to disclose
wherein a tip portion of the engagement member does not contact the operation member in the imaging state, and contacts the operation member in the non-imaging state due to biasing by the second biasing member.
However, the limitation, “wherein a tip portion of the engagement member does not contact the operation member in the imaging state, and contacts the operation member in the non-imaging state due to biasing by the second biasing member” is functional in nature. Such a functional limitation is only given patentable weight insofar as it imparts a structural limitation. Here, the device of Iijima, in view of Takehana and Arakawa et al., is capable of performing the function, “wherein a tip portion of the engagement member does not contact the operation member in the imaging state, and contacts the operation member in the non-imaging state due to biasing by the second biasing member.”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Iijima, in view of Takehana and Arakawa et al., with wherein a tip portion of the engagement member does not contact the operation member in the imaging state, and contacts the operation member in the non-imaging state due to biasing by the second biasing member.
Doing so would provide a mechanism for moving the components between operation modes of the device.
In regard to claim 16, Iijima, in view of Takehana, and Arakawa et al., discloses the limitations as applied to claim 14 above, but fails to disclose
wherein a biasing force of the second biasing member increases when the engagement member rides up the tapered portion, and decreases at a retracted end.
However, the limitation, “wherein a biasing force of the second biasing member increases when the engagement member rides up the tapered portion, and decreases at a retracted end” is functional in nature. Such a functional limitation is only given patentable weight insofar as it imparts a structural limitation. Here, the device of Iijima, in view of Takehana and Arakawa et al., is capable of performing the function, “wherein a tip portion of the engagement member does not contact the operation member in the imaging state, and contacts the operation member in the non-imaging state due to biasing by the second biasing member.”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Iijima, in view of Takehana and Arakawa et al., with wherein a biasing force of the second biasing member increases when the engagement member rides up the tapered portion, and decreases at a retracted end.
Doing so would provide a mechanism for moving the components between operation modes of the device.
In regard to claim 17, Iijima, in view of Takehana, and Arakawa et al., discloses the limitations as applied to claim 9 above, but fails to disclose
wherein a rotation torque of the operation member is larger in the non-imaging state than in the imaging state.
However, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize using wherein a rotation torque of the operation member is larger in the non-imaging state than in the imaging state, since it has been held that where the general condition of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art (see e.g. MPEP 2144.05).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Iijima, in view of Takehana, with wherein a rotation torque of the operation member is larger in the non-imaging state than in the imaging state.
Doing so would provide a mechanism for moving the components between operation modes of the device.
In regard to claim 18, Iijima, in view of Takehana, discloses the limitations as applied to claim 9, but fails to disclose
wherein the cam barrel is connected to the operation member.
However, Arakawa et al. discloses
wherein the cam barrel 37 or 38 is connected to the operation member 24.
Given the teachings of Arakawa et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Iijima, in view of Takehana, with wherein the cam barrel is connected to the operation member.
Doing so would provide a mechanism for moving the components between operation modes of the device.
In regard to claim 19, Iijima, in view of Takehana, discloses the limitations as applied to claim 14 above, but fails to disclose
wherein the guide barrel is fixed to a lens mount via the fixed barrel.
However, Arakawa et al. discloses (see e.g. Figures 1-4):
wherein the guide barrel 37 or 38 is fixed to a lens mount 32 via the fixed barrel 22.
Given the teachings of Arakawa et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Iijima, in view of Takehana, with wherein the guide barrel is fixed to a lens mount via the fixed barrel.
Doing so would provide a mechanism for moving the components between operation modes of the device.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JESSICA M MERLIN whose telephone number is (571)270-3207. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:00AM-5:00PM.
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, Jennifer Carruth can be reached at (571) 272-9791. 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.
/JESSICA M MERLIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871
Prosecution Insights