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 .
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 10 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 10 recites a formular, reciting X1 and X2, however, the claim defines “X” but does not define “X1”. Accordingly, it is unclear whether “X” was intended to be “X1” or “X1” represents some other distance. For examination purpose, “X” is interpreted as “X1”.
Claim 10 also recites “a start time for the first moving lens group” whereas claim 1 introduces a “first moving lens frame” not a “first moving lens group”, and it is unclear whether the “first moving lens group” is the first moving lens frame, a lens held by that frame or different component. For purpose of examination, examiner interprets “first moving lens group” as “first moving lens frame.”
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6, 12, 13 and 15-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayakawa JP 2010210868 in view of Sasaki US 2015/0205068.
Regarding claim 1, Hayakawa teaches a lens barrel (see at least Fig. 1 and para 0015) comprising:
a first moving lens frame and a second moving lens frame (see paras. 12-15 and 21-23 and Figs. 1-3: second group lens barrel 3 and a fourth group lens barrel 4 each having a movable lens frame),
a drive unit configured to move the first moving lens frame in an optical axis direction and to move the second moving lens frame in the optical axis direction (paras. 17 and 19-20 and Figs. 1-2: the second group lens barrel 3 is moved along the optical axis by stepping motor 9, while the fourth group lens barrel 4 is moved along the optical axis by VCM);
a detection unit configured to detect a reference position of the first moving lens frame and a reference position of the second moving lens frame (para 12-14: teaches photo interrupter 11 detects the respective reference positions of movable lens frames 3 and 4); and
a control unit configured to perform a reset drive in which the first moving lens frame is moved to the reference position of the first moving lens frame and the second moving lens frame is moved to the reference position of the second moving lens frame (paras. 21-23 and 27-31: teaches upon power on, the camera CPU moves lens frame 3 to an initial zoom reference position and lens frame 4 to initial focus reference position);
wherein the control unit changes reset drive conditions for the first moving lens frame or the second moving lens frame based on outputs from the detection unit (see paras. 24-33 and Fig. 4: teaches depending on whether photo interrupter 11 initially process an “in” or “out” output, the controller selects which lens frame is driven first, the direction in which each frame is driven).
However, Hayakawa fails to teach: wherein there are overlapping regions in a movement range of the first moving lens frame and a movement range of the second moving lens frame.
In the same field of endeavor, Sasaki teaches a lens barrel having a cam driven lens frame and a nut driven lens frame that are independently moved in the optical axis direction by respective zoom and focus drive mechanisms (see para 0014), and the driving ranges of the nut driven lens frame and the cam driven lens frame partially overlap each other in the optical axis direction (see para 0014-0015), and Sasaki further states that an interference region P in the overlapping driving ranges of fourth lens group frame 9 and fifth lens group frame 10, within the two frame may contact each other (see para 0088-0089). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to configure the movement range of Hayakawa’s second lens group lens barrel 3 and fourth lens group 4 to partially overlap in the optical axis direction as taught by Sasaki in order to reduce the axial movement spaced required for the respective lens frame and thereby provide a more compact lens barrel while maintain optically desirable zoom and focus movement paths as described in para 0089 of Sasaki.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Hayakawa teaches the lens barrel according to claim 1, and Hayakawa further teaches wherein the control unit moves the first moving lens frame and the second moving lens frame at the same time (see paras. 0028 and 0031: teaches that the two drive mechanisms can be operated simultaneously).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Hayakawa teaches the lens barrel according to claim 1, and Hayakawa further teaches wherein the reset drive conditions are a movement speed or a start timing (paras. 25-33: teaches based on the output state of photo interrupter 11, changes the order and start timing of the movement. In one detected condition, lens frame 4 is moved before lens 3; in another condition lens frame 3 may begin at time B after lens frame 4).
Regarding claim 6, Hayakawa teaches the lens barrel according to claim 1, and Hayakawa further teaches wherein the detection unit is configured to detect which of a plurality of regions the first moving lens frame and the second moving lens frame exist in (para 21-24 and 27-31 and Figs. 3-4: explains the light shielding portions of lens frames 3 and 4 selectively place photo interrupter 11 in an “in” or “out” state. The change between states occurs at the respective reference detection position), wherein the plurality of regions is segmented by positioning the reference positions on the borders of the plurality of regions (detected “in” and “out” areas constitute regions separated by the reference position switching boundary); and the control unit is configured to change the reset drive conditions based on regions in which the first moving lens frame and the second moving lens frame exist (paras. 24-33 and Fig. 4: explains that initial photo interrupter state determines whether the process follows the Figs. 3A, 3B, 3C or 3D sequence, including which frame moves first and when the other frame begins moving).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Hayakawa teaches the lens barrel according to claim 1, and Hayakawa further teaches wherein the drive unit is a stepping motor (see at least para 12: one of the driving unit is stepping motor).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Hayakawa teaches the lens barrel according to the claim 1, and Hayakawa further teaches wherein the detection unit is configured to be able to detect a movement amount and a movement direction of the first moving lens frame and a movement amount and a movement direction of the second moving lens frame (see para 0036-0037: teaches zoom encoder 225 and focus encoder 226 detects the respective absolute axial positions of lens group L2 and L4).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Hayakawa teaches the lens barrel according to claim 1, and Hayakawa further teaches wherein at least one of the first moving lens frame and the second moving lens frame is a zooming lens frame (para 21: lens frame 2 holds second lens group L2 and is moved to an initial zoom position).
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Hayakawa teaches the lens barrel according to claim 1, and Hayakawa further teaches wherein at least one of the first moving lens frame and the second moving lens frame is a focusing lens frame (see para 20: focusing is performed by moving the 4 group lens barrel 4.).
Regarding claim 17, Hayakawa teaches an optical apparatus (see para 0001: teaches video or digital still camera) comprising a lens barrel (see at least Fig. 1 and para 0015) comprising:
a first moving lens frame and a second moving lens frame (see paras. 12-15 and 21-23 and Figs. 1-3: second group lens barrel 3 and a fourth group lens barrel 4 each having a movable lens frame),
a drive unit configured to move the first moving lens frame in an optical axis direction and to move the second moving lens frame in the optical axis direction (paras. 17 and 19-20 and Figs. 1-2: the second group lens barrel 3 is moved along the optical axis by stepping motor 9, while the fourth group lens barrel 4 is moved along the optical axis by VCM);
a detection unit configured to detect a reference position of the first moving lens frame and a reference position of the second moving lens frame (para 12-14: teaches photo interrupter 11 detects the respective reference positions of movable lens frames 3 and 4); and
a control unit configured to perform a reset drive in which the first moving lens frame is moved to the reference position of the first moving lens frame and the second moving lens frame is moved to the reference position of the second moving lens frame (paras. 21-23 and 27-31: teaches upon power on, the camera CPU moves lens frame 3 to an initial zoom reference position and lens frame 4 to initial focus reference position);
wherein the control unit changes reset drive conditions for the first moving lens frame or the second moving lens frame based on outputs from the detection unit (see paras. 24-33 and Fig. 4: teaches depending on whether photo interrupter 11 initially process an “in” or “out” output, the controller selects which lens frame is driven first, the direction in which each frame is driven), and
a camera body to which the lens barrel has been fixed or removably mounted (see para 0015: lens barrel 1 is detachably attached to a camera body)
However, Hayakawa fails to teach: wherein there are overlapping regions in a movement range of the first moving lens frame and a movement range of the second moving lens frame.
In the same field of endeavor, Sasaki teaches a lens barrel having a cam driven lens frame and a nut driven lens frame that are independently moved in the optical axis direction by respective zoom and focus drive mechanisms (see para 0014), and the driving ranges of the nut driven lens frame and the cam driven lens frame partially overlap each other in the optical axis direction (see para 0014-0015), and Sasaki further states that an interference region P in the overlapping driving ranges of fourth lens group frame 9 and fifth lens group frame 10, within the two frame may contact each other (see para 0088-0089). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to configure the movement range of Hayakawa’s second lens group lens barrel 3 and fourth lens group 4 to partially overlap in the optical axis direction as taught by Sasaki in order to reduce the axial movement spaced required for the respective lens frame and thereby provide a more compact lens barrel while maintain optically desirable zoom and focus movement paths as described in para 0089 of Sasaki.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayakawa and Sasaki as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kim et al. US 2016/0094791.
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Hayakawa teaches the lens barrel according to claim 1, except for wherein the control unit is configured to change the reset drive conditions for the second moving lens frame, and wherein the movement speed of the second moving lens frame is higher than the movement speed of the first moving lens frame.
Kim teaches a lens control system having a zoom lens and a focus lens that are moved together under coordinated control (see para 0005-0006), and the highest zoom lens movement is 32 steps/VD, whereas the highest focus lens movement speed is 90 steps/VD (see para 0051, Table 1 and paras 0081-0084). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to configure the fourth group focus lens barrel 4 to move at a higher speed than the second group zoom lens barrel 3 as taught by Kim so that the focus lens frame can complete its required movement without delaying the coordinated movement of the zoom lens frame.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayakawa and Sasaki as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Boltanski et al. US 2023/0039197.
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Hayakawa teaches the lens barrel according to claim 1, and Hayakawa further teaches wherein the control unit is configured to change the reset drive conditions for the second moving lens frame (see para 0025-0031: based on photo interrupter output the fourth group lens barrel 4 moves), however, Hayakawa fails to teach wherein the movement range for the second moving lens frame is smaller than the movement range for the first moving lens frame.
Boltanski teaches a G2 carrier having a relatively small movement range and a G13 carrier having a relatively large movement range (see para 0087-0088), including respective maximum strokes of 0.16 mm and 6.4 mm (see para 102). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide Hayakawa’s second moving lens frame with smaller movement range taught by Boltanski to reduce the required travel and actuator size of the second frame while providing the principal zoom movement through the first frame.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayakawa and Sasaki as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hasegawa US 2018/0348472.
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Hayakawa teaches the lens barrel according to claim 1, but fails to teach wherein the lens barrel is configured to further comprise a base cylinder configured to hold both the first moving lens frame and the second moving lens frame, and to move in the optical axis direction.
In the same field of endeavor, Hasegawa teaches a movable barrel 5 (base cylinder), in which first lens holding frame 1 is fixed to barrel 5, while second lens frame 2 is movably held and supported by barrel 5 (see para 0022, 0035 and Fig. 2). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the lens frame of Hayakawa and Sasaki on Hasegawa’s movable barrel 5 so that the lens frames could be commonly supported and moved during extension or retraction of the lens barrel while retaining their relative movements for zooming and focusing.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-10 and 11 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.
Regarding claim 7, the lens barrel according to claim 1, wherein the detection unit comprises: a first detection unit configured to detect a first reference position and a second reference position of the first moving lens frame; and a second detection unit configured to detect a third reference position of the second moving lens frame; wherein the first reference position and the third reference position exist in the overlapping regions.
Regarding claim 8, the lens barrel according to claim 1, wherein, the detection unit comprises: a first detection unit configured to detect a first reference position and a second reference position of the first moving lens frame; and a second detection unit configured to detect a third reference position and a fourth reference position of the second moving lens frame; wherein the first reference position and the third reference position exist in the overlapping regions.
Regarding claim 9, the lens barrel according to claim 1, wherein the detection unit comprises: a first detection unit configured to detect a first reference position of the first moving lens frame; and a second detection unit configured to detect a third reference position of the second moving lens frame; wherein the first reference position and the third reference position exist in the overlapping regions.
Regarding claim 11, the lens barrel according to claim 1, wherein the movement range is configured such that the overlapping regions have a larger distance than regions that are not the overlapping regions.
Claim 10 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.
Regarding claim 10, the lens barrel according to claim 1, wherein the control unit is configured to change a movement speed of the second moving lens frame when a time t found using a formula given below has elapsed since a start time for the first moving lens group,
t=(X2−X1)/V1−Δt Provided that, X: a distance between a first position of the first moving lens frame and a third position of the second moving lens frame X2: a distance from a moving end of the first moving lens frame to the first reference position V1: a movement speed of the first moving lens frame Δt: a difference between a start time of the first moving lens frame and a start time of the second moving lens frame.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EPHREM ZERU MEBRAHTU whose telephone number is (571)272-8386. The examiner can normally be reached 10 am -6 pm (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, Stephone Allen can be reached at 571-272-2434. 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.
/EPHREM Z MEBRAHTU/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights