Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the Applicant’s communication filed on 23 October 2024. In virtue of this communication, claims 1-9 are currently presented in the instant application. Presently, claim 1 has been amended and claims 2-9 have been newly added.
Information Disclosure Statement(s)
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 11/19/2024 and 4/20/2026 is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and 1.98. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) is/are being considered by the examiner.
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. 15/252731, filed on 8/31/2016.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, “the object” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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.
Claim Objections
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 9 line 6: “tab” should be plural.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
With respect to claims 1-9, particularly claims 1, 8, and 9, claim “an object”. There does not seem to be support for this feature in the specification, and only seems to presumably appear in Fig. 1. There is no distinguishing this feature from the rest of the camera body, and what it means to “project” from the top surface (claim 1), rather than just being a part of it, or being farther in the optical axis direction than the reference surface (claim 8, noting that figures are not to scale).
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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
Claims 1 and 3-7 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kawasaki et al. (Patent No.: US 5,778,271, herein known as D1) in view of Misawa (Patent No.: US 6,351,612 B1, herein known as D2) and/or Yoshida et al. (Patent No.: US 5,946,516 A, herein known as D3) and/or Doi et al. (Publication No.: US 2006/0165401 A1, herein known as D4).
With respect to claim 1, D1 discloses an imaging apparatus comprising:
a camera body (camera body 1; Fig. 1);
a mount located at a front side of the camera body and to which an interchangeable lens is detachably mountable (body mount 10; Fig. 1)
an image sensor having a rectangular shape (unreferenced, implied and appears to be shown in Fig. 2, see obvious explanation below);
a reference surface (i) having a ring shape when viewed in an optical axis direction and (ii) surrounding the image sensor when viewed in the optical axis direction (front surface of body mount 10; Fig. 1); and
a plurality of tabs (i) arranged along an inner circumference of an opening of the reference surface and (ii) projecting toward inside of the opening (see tabs 12a, 12b, and 12c of Fig. 1) wherein:
one tab among the plurality of tabs is disposed on a first line passing through a center of the opening and extending in a direction parallel to a long side of the image sensor (either of 12b and 12c; see Fig. 1),
another tab of the plurality of tabs is disposed on a second line passing through the center of the opening and extending in a direction parallel to a short side of the image sensor (12a; see Fig. 1), and
a front side surface of each of the plurality of tabs is arranged nearer to the image sensor than a front side surface of the reference surface (see Fig. 1; the tabs are located below the top surface of the body mount).
D1 appears to further disclose that the camera body has a top surface at which an object projecting outward from the top surface is provided and a center of the object is located on the second line (the top of the casing looks like it is removable based on the design, and the broadness of “object” and “top surface” appears to meet this limitation, see also obviousness below).
D1 does not appear to explicitly disclose the image sensor (the reference is focused only on the mount system) or the object (the top surface is unreferenced).
D1 appears to teach the image sensor position in Fig. 2 with the large rectangular structure which one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize as either being the substrate the CCD is mounted on or the CCD itself. Alternatively, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to arrange the CCD this way as there are only two orientations for the rectangular structure of the CCD, and that the lengthwise direction is commonly known from both Kawase (22, Fig. 3) and Tokiwa (25; Fig. 2), both cited in full below.
D1 further teaches that the three tabs are different sizes (Column 3 lines 3-6) to prevent incorrect insertion. Which tab is the largest and which tab is the smallest is not explicitly disclosed, and the tabs shown in Fig. 2 appear to show tab 12c to be explicitly the largest, but it is not clear which of 12b and 12a are smaller.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the body of D1 to select 12b as the smaller of the two as a design choice, as the ultimate goal of the three differing sizes is to prevent errant insertion of the lens, and can be obtained in any configuration of the three tabs.
Furthermore, as figures are not to scale and the explicit locations of the two tabs with respect to the horizontal axis are not defined, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the tabs 12b and 12c both along the center line in the parallel direction of the CCD as a design choice, by increasing the size of the tabs, or rotating them slightly, as the goal of a three-pronged bayonet connection as known in the art will be maintained in either state. Ludwig, cited in full below, shows an example of an interchangeable lens barrel that has two tabs arranged across the horizontal axis in Figs. 2-4.
D2 (flash 14), D3 (cable 38 and connector 40), and D4 (element where 1 is directed to in Fig. 1) all teach objects (D2 a flash, D3 a cable for the iris meter, and D4 also appears to be a flash) projecting from the top surfaces of the camera body with centerlines corresponding to the second line.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the imaging apparatus of D1 to include a flash or other type of object such as cabling as taught by D2, D3, and/or D4 on the top surface of the camera body in order to illuminate the scene or perform communications. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that a flash would be centered on the second line as to give symmetrical illumination.
It is also to be noted that it appears with the broadness of the language used, any object of any kind can be placed on top of any of these cameras in the general location and would meet this limitation.
With respect to claim 3, the modification of D1/combination of D1, D2, D3, and/or D4 further discloses an imaging apparatus wherein all of the one tab disposed on the first line is located within one of two regions circumferentially divided by the second line (both unmodified and modified 12b and 12c are located on the fully left or fully right side, respectively, of the second line).
With respect to claim 4, the modification of D1/combination of D1, D2, D3, and/or D4 further discloses an imaging apparatus wherein all of the other tab disposed on the second line is located within one of two regions circumferentially divided by the first line (both unmodified and modified 12a is located fully above the first line as seen in Fig. 1).
With respect to claim 5, the modification of D1/combination of D1, D2, D3, and/or D4 does not appear to explicitly disclose an imaging apparatus wherein the one tab disposed on the first line has a smallest circumferential length, and the other tab disposed on the second line has a second smallest circumferential length.
D1 further teaches that the three tabs are different sizes (Column 3 lines 3-6) to prevent incorrect insertion. Which tab is the largest and which tab is the smallest is not explicitly disclosed, and the tabs shown in Fig. 2 appear to show tab 12c to be explicitly the largest, but it is not clear which of 12b and 12a are smaller.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to further modify the imaging apparatus of the modification of D1/combination of D1, D2, D3, and/or D4 to select 12b as the smaller of the two as a design choice, as the ultimate goal of the three differing sizes is to prevent errant insertion of the lens, and can be obtained in any configuration of the three tabs.
With respect to claim 6, the modification of D1/combination of D1, D2, D3, and/or D4 further discloses an imaging apparatus further comprising: a plurality of circumferential spaces provided between the plurality of tabs along the inner circumference of the opening (all the gaps between tabs seen in Figs. 1 and 2); and
a pin that projects from the mount and toward the interchangeable lens when the interchangeable lens is attached to the imaging apparatus, wherein the pin is disposed on the first line (locking pin 17; see Figs. 1 and 2 which show the pin disposed on the first line).
With respect to claim 7, the modification of D1/combination of D1, D2, D3, and/or D4 further discloses an imaging apparatus wherein the center of the opening substantially coincides with a center of the image sensor (see Fig. 2).
With respect to claim 8, the modification of D1/combination of D1, D2, D3, and/or D4 further discloses an imaging apparatus wherein a front side surface of the object is located a position farther from the image sensor than the reference surface in the optical axis direction (D2 and D3 both seem to show this, with the cable of D2 extending far past the reference surface, or D3 having a similar structure to that seen in Fig. 1).
With respect to claim 9, the modification of D1/combination of D1, D2, D3, and/or D4 further discloses an imaging apparatus wherein: the one tab disposed on the first line has a smallest circumferential length among the plurality of tables; the other tab disposed on the second line has a second smallest circumferential length among the plurality of tables (see rejection of claim 5 above); and all of the other tab disposed on the second line is directly below the object (all of the tabs are below the object of D2, D3, and D4).
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 1-7 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 5 of U.S. Patent No. 11,592,729 B2 or the patent in view of D1. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Claims 1-7 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,592,729 B2 in view of D1.
The tables are formatted in the following manner:
Present application claim – patent claim – reasons for obviousness
Claim 1: An imaging apparatus comprising: a camera body; a mount located at a front side of the camera body and to which an interchangeable lens is detachably mountable
Claim 1: A camera body that includes a mount to which an interchangeable lens is detachably mountable, comprising
rephrasing
an image sensor having a rectangular shape
an image sensor
Image sensors are known in the art to have a rectangular shape such as the one suggested by D1; furthermore the later limitations requires a long side of the image sensor which suggests a rectangular shape
a reference surface (i) having a ring shape when viewed in an optical axis direction from a front side and (ii) surrounding the image sensor when viewed in the optical axis direction
See D1 rejection above to show the reference surface which would be obvious to modify as having a base for the tabs to be arranged
and a plurality of tabs (i) arranged along an inner circumference of an opening of the reference surface and (ii) projecting toward inside of the opening, wherein
a plurality of tabs arranged along an inner circumference of an opening of the mount that is in a circular shape, and projecting toward inside of the opening, wherein
Substantially the same
one tab among the plurality of tabs is disposed on a first line passing through a center of the opening and extending in a direction parallel to a long side of the image sensor
two tabs among the plurality of tabs are disposed on a first line passing through a center of the opening and extending in a direction parallel to a long side of the image sensor
In the patent two of the plurality of tabs are disposed on the line which includes one
another tab of the plurality of tabs is disposed on a second line passing through the center of the opening and extending in a direction parallel to a short side of the image sensor
D1 shows a third tab arranged on this line (12a), see rejection above, and would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the patent to have one in this location to achieve the goal of D1 to prevent detachment of the interchangeable lens in the interlocked state
And a front side surface of each of the plurality of tabs is arranged nearer to the image sensor than a front side surface of the reference surface.
D1 shows the tabs being arranged farther back than the front surface and would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to do so to prevent the tabs from being unintentionally damaged
one of the two tabs disposed on the first line is a smallest tab among the plurality of tabs; and a tapered surface is provided at one end of each of the plurality of tabs.
Both of these limitations have been removed (found in claims 5 and 2, respectively). It has been held that a removal of parts and function is a obvious variant over the prior art.
The camera body has a top surface at which an object projecting outward from the top surface is provided; and a center of the object is located on the second line
See 112 and 103 rejection above in view of D2, D3, and D4
With respect to claim 2, this feature is found in patented claim 1.
With respect to claims 3 and 4, these features are not claimed in the patent, however would be obvious in view of D1 as to the arrangement of the plurality of tabs as rejected above.
With respect to claim 5, claim 1 of the patent claims the smallest being on the first line. Claim 1 does not claim the second smallest being on the second line. In view of D1 and the motivations as discussed in in the rejection of claim 5 above it would have been obvious to modify the patent to place the second smallest tab along the second line.
With respect to claim 6, claim 5 of the patent claims the gaps and the pin. Claim 5 does not disclose that the pin is along the first line. D1 teaches a lock pin that is arranged on the first line, which would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to choose as a design choice arranged around the surface where the corresponding lock pin hole can be rotated and connected to the pin.
With respect to claim 7, the patent does not claim this feature, but would be obvious in view of D1 (see rejection above) as to ensure that the image sensor and the light entering the lens correspond.
With respect to claims 8 and 9, the patent does not claim this feature, but would be obvious in view of D1, D2, D3, and/or D4 (see rejections above) to have additional functionality at the top of the camera body.
Citation of Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Hasuda et al. (Patent No.: US 10,809,601 B2)
Tokiwa et al. (Publication No.: US 2006/0216023 A1)
Kawase et al. (Patent No.: US 5,889,555)
Ludwig (Patent No.: US 4,307,954)
Inquiry
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DIANA HANCOCK whose telephone number is (571)270-7547. The examiner can normally be reached on 10AM-6PM EST M-F.
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, Stephanie Bloss can be reached on (571) 272-3555. 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.
/D.H/Examiner, Art Unit 2852
7/25/2026
/STEPHANIE E BLOSS/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2852
Prosecution Insights