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 .]
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because:
reference character “10b” has been used twice in Figure 3 to designate both a bayonet groove and a guide barrel radial fitting portion in the cam ring.
Reference character “102” is used twice in Figure 4 to refer to two different components – one in the first lens unit 100 and the other in the second lens unit 200.
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. 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.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
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.
Claims 6 and 7 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. In claim 6, four conditions are stated (i.e. 1. “when viewed from a direction orthogonal to the optical axis direction”, 2. “when a distance from a holding position of the engagement member of the base moving member to a detection center position of the detection portion held by the base moving member is LS”, 3. “and a distance from the holding position of the engagement member to an end portion of the base moving member is LR”, and 4. “wherein the detection unit is held within a range of: LS ≤ LR/2), but there is no stated consequence of those conditions. Alternatively, the phrase “when a distance from a holding position” in line 2 of claim 6 can be replaced with “a distance from a holding position,” such that the section stating “wherein the detection unit is held within a range of: LS ≤ LR/2” can be read as the consequence of the preceding three conditions. Claim 7 suffers from the same ambiguity. It is unclear which interpretation is intended, but for examination purposes, the latter interpretation will be used. Claims 6 and 7 do not have any depending claims to inherit the deficiencies. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-4, 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kitayama (US 20230314758).
Regarding Claim 1, Kitayama discloses:
An optical apparatus (Title - LENS APPARATUS AND IMAGING APPARATUS) comprising:
a fixed member (Figures 1-4: 112, para. 30 – guide barrel fixed to a fixed barrel),
a base moving member that moves in an optical axis direction (119, para. 31, 33 – zoom operation barrel),
a rotating member rotatably held with respect to the fixed member (260, para. 30 – cam barrel),
and a detection unit configured to directly detect a relative position between the base moving member and the fixed member (para. 49-50 – zoom position detector),
wherein the base moving member holds an engaging member that engages with one of
a rectilinear groove (251, para. 55 – straight groove) and
a cam groove provided in the fixed member (in the alternative) and
one of a cam groove (261, para. 55 – cam groove) and
a rectilinear groove provided in the rotating member (in the alternative), and wherein
the base moving member moves in the optical axis direction by rotation of the rotating member (Figs. 1, 3-4, para. 49-50 – cam barrel rotates in conjunction with the rotation of the zoom operation barrel).
Regarding Claim 2, Kitayama discloses:
The optical apparatus according to claim 1 (Fig. 1), wherein
the base moving member holds at least one sub moving member held so as to be relatively movable in the optical axis direction with respect to the base moving member (Fig. 1, 8, para. 42, 44-45, 48 – movable lens holding frames), wherein
the sub moving member is moved by a driving unit held by the base moving member (para. 43, 46, 48 – driving force transmission mechanism).
Regarding Claim 3, Kitayama discloses:
The optical apparatus according to claim 1 (Fig. 1),
wherein the base moving member moves (119 – zoom operation barrel) in the optical axis direction on an inner diameter side with respect to the fixed member (250 – guide barrel) (para. 31-32 – zoom operation barrel is held by diameter fitting to the guide barrel) and
holds a lens unit other than a lens unit positioned closest to the subject (Fig. 1, para. 33 – second lens holding base).
Regarding Claim 4, Kitayama discloses:
The optical apparatus according to claim 1 (Fig. 1),
wherein the base moving member holds a plurality of moving members having different movement trajectories (Fig. 1-4: 104, 200, para. 42, 54-55 – additional moving elements), wherein
the detection unit detects a position of any one of (only one required) the moving members (para. 32, 44, 49-52 – scale for position detection)
having a largest cam intersection angle (in the alternative),
the moving member having the largest amount of movement (in the alternative), and
the moving member having the highest focus sensitivity among the plurality of moving members (para. 42 – fourth lends holding frame which holds lens unit L4, the focus lens unit; also in the alternative).
Regarding Claim 8, Kitayama discloses:
The optical apparatus according to claim 2 (Fig. 1, 8, para. 42, 44-45, 48), wherein
the base moving member holds a second detector that detects a relative position of the sub moving member with respect to the base moving member (para. 44, 50 – focus operation barrel).
Regarding Claim 9, Kitayama discloses:
An imaging apparatus (Title – Lens Apparatus and Imaging Apparatus) comprising:
an optical apparatus (Fig. 1) and
an image sensor configured to capture an image formed by the optical apparatus (Fig. 17, para. 28, 90 – imaging apparatus),
the optical apparatus (Fig. 1) comprising:
a fixed member (Figures 1-4: 112, para. 30 – Guide barrel fixed to a Fixed barrel),
a base moving member that moves in an optical axis direction (119, para. 31, 33 – zoom operation barrel),
a rotating member rotatably held with respect to the fixed member (260, para. 30 – cam barrel),
a detection unit configured to directly detect a relative position between the base moving member and the fixed member (para. 49-50 – zoom position detector), wherein
the base moving member holds an engagement member that engages with one of a
rectilinear groove (251, para. 55 – straight groove) and
a cam groove provided in the fixed member (in the alternative) and one of
a cam groove (261, para. 55 – cam groove) and
a rectilinear groove provided in the rotating member (in the alternative), and wherein
the base moving member moves in the optical axis direction by rotation of the rotating member (Figs. 1, 3-4, para. 49-50 – cam barrel rotates in conjunction with the rotation of the zoom operation barrel).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kitayama in view of Sato (US 20200049929).
Regarding Claim 5, Kitayama discloses:
The optical apparatus according to claim 1 (Fig. 1),
and wherein one of the scale portion and the detection portion is held by the fixed member (para. 31 – held by diameter fitting to the guide barrel),
and the other of the scale portion and the detection portion is held by the base moving member (para. 31-32 – zoom operation barrel).
Kitayama does not disclose: wherein the detection unit includes a scale portion provided with a pattern and a detection portion configured to detect the pattern.
Kitayama and Sato are related as they are lens barrels.
Sato teaches that the detection unit includes a scale portion provided with a pattern (para. 32 – gray code pattern)
and a detection portion configured to detect the pattern (para. 32 – zoom brush detects the pattern). The benefit of the pattern is that it does not require direct contact for sensing.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute a pattern sensor for a force sensor, as taught by Sato, in the lens barrel of Kitayama, so as to no longer require direct contact for sensing.
Regarding Claim 6, as best understood, the Kitayama-Sato combination further discloses:
The optical apparatus according to claim 5,
wherein when viewed from a direction orthogonal to the optical axis direction, [when] a distance from a holding position of the engagement member of the base moving member to a detection center position of the detection portion held by the base moving member is LS (see Kitayama Fig. 1 – there is a distance), and
a distance from the holding position of the engagement member to an end on a longer side of a distance from the holding position of the engagement member to an end portion of the base moving member is LR (see Kitayama Fig. 1 – there is a second distance),
but the Kitayama-Sato combination does not disclose: wherein the detection unit is held within a range of: LS≤ LR/2.
However, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim, including those that 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 (C.C.P.A. 1955). Considered a result effective variable (MPEP 2144.05(III)(C)), the general conditions are met in the combination because there exist spatial distances as defined above, and because these are lens barrels of the same scale. The benefit is to optimize for the size of the desired system.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize this distance relationship so as to achieve the desired size of the system.
Regarding Claim 7, as best understood, the Kitayama-Sato combination further discloses:
The optical apparatus according to claim 5 (Fig. 1), wherein
when viewed from the optical axis direction, [when] an angle from a holding position of the engagement member of the base moving member to a detection center position of the detection portion held by the base moving member is θ S (there is an angle between these elements), and
an angle between the adjacent engagement members held by the base moving member is θ, with respect to any one of the engagement members (there is a second angle disclosed);
but the Kitayama-Sato combination does not disclose that: the detection unit is held within a range of: θS≦θ/3.
However, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim, including those that 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 (C.C.P.A. 1955). Considered a result effective variable (MPEP 2144.05(III)(C)), the general conditions are met in the combination because there exist angular distances as defined above, and because these are lens barrels of the same scale. The benefit is to optimize for the size of the desired system.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize this angular relationship so as to achieve the desired size of the system.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHAZERAE AYODELE PIERCE-WALKER whose telephone number is (571)270-7492. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30am - 5pm.
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 5712729791. 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.
/C.A.P./Examiner, Art Unit 2871
/JENNIFER D. CARRUTH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2871
Prosecution Insights