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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/25/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“a first drive unit” in claims 1 and 10;
“a second drive unit” in claims 1 and 10;
“a transmission unit” in claim 5;
“a second position adjuster” in claim 7; and
“a third position adjuster” in claim 7
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-11 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.
Claims 1 and 10 recite “a second optical system disposed in parallel with the first optical system.” However, it is unclear how the second optical system can be disposed “in parallel with the first optical system.” Specifically, as neither optical system has been defined to be provided along any axis, it is unclear which direction should be considered to be “parallel.” For example, it is unclear if the first and second optical systems should be parallel along an optical axis, whether their optical axes should be arranged to be parallel to one another, or whether the optical systems should be parallel in some other manner. For the purposes of examination, any two optical systems that are coaxial (i.e. parallel along an optical axis) or have parallel optical axes will be interpreted as reading on the claimed limitation.
Additionally, claims 1 and 10 recite “a base member configured to hold the first optical system and the second optical system movably in an optical axis direction.” However, it is unclear how the base member can be configured to “hold” the optical systems “movably in an optical axis direction.” Specifically, it is unclear if the base member must actually move, if the base member merely needs to hold two optical systems in an optical axis direction, or if some other configuration is required. For the purposes of examination, any base member that holds the first and second optical system will be interpreted as reading on the claimed limitation.
Claims 1 and 10 further recite “a first holder configured to hold a part of a plurality of lenses constituting the second optical system.” However, it is unclear if the claim positively requires that the second optical system includes a plurality of lenses, or if a single lens would read on the second optical system. Moreover, it is unclear what should be considered “a part” of the second optical system. For the purposes of examination, any holder that holds any lenses of the second optical system will be interpreted as reading on the claimed limitation.
Claims 2-9 are rejected as being dependent upon claim 1 and failing to cure the deficiencies of the rejected base claim; and claim 11 is rejected as being dependent upon claim 10 and failing to cure the deficiencies of the rejected base claim.
Claim 4 recites that “each of the first optical system and the second optical system is a coaxial optical system.” However, it is unclear how the first and second optical systems can be “coaxial” as it is unclear what the first and second optical systems should be “coaxial” with. Specifically, claim 4 depends upon claim 1 which recites that the second optical system is “disposed in parallel with the first optical system.” It is unclear how the two optical systems can be disposed in parallel and simultaneously “coaxial.” It is unclear if the claim is intending for the optical systems to comprise coaxial elements or if the optical systems should be coaxial with some other element. For the purposes of examination, any optical systems arranged along an axis will be interpreted as “coaxial optical systems.”
Claim 7 recites “a second holder configured to hold at least a part of lenses of the first optical system; and a third holder disposed in parallel with the second holder and configured to hold at least a part of lenses of the second optical system.” However, it is unclear if the claim positively requires that the first and second optical system includes a plurality of lenses, or if a single lens would read on the first and second optical system. Moreover, it is unclear what should be considered “a part” of the first or second optical system. Additionally, it is unclear if the “part of lenses of the second optical system” should be the same “part” recited in claim 1 or an additional “part.” For the purposes of examination, any holder that holds any lenses of the optical systems will be interpreted as reading on the claimed limitation.
Furthermore, it is unclear how the third holder can be disposed “in parallel with the second holder.” Specifically, as neither holder has been defined to be provided along any axis, it is unclear which direction should be considered to be “parallel.” For example, it is unclear if the second and third holders should be parallel along an optical axis, whether they should have axes that are arranged to be parallel to one another, or whether the holders should be parallel in some other manner. For the purposes of examination, any two holders that are coaxial (i.e. parallel along a single axis) or have parallel axes will be interpreted as reading on the claimed limitation.
Claims 8-9 are rejected as being dependent upon claim 7 and failing to cure the deficiencies of the rejected base claim.
Claim 9 recites that “the second position adjuster is configured to adjust and determine the position of the second holder, and wherein the third position adjuster is configured to adjust and determine the position of the third holder.” However, it is unclear how a “position adjuster” can be configured to “determine the position” of a holder. Specifically, it is unclear what structure is required for “determining” a position, and how an “adjuster” can also determine a position. For the purposes of examination, any structure that adjusts a position of a holder will read on the claimed “position adjusters.”
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.
A complete response to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection is either a reply by applicant showing that the claims subject to the rejection are patentably distinct from the reference claims or the filing of a terminal disclaimer in accordance with 37 CFR 1.321 in the pending application(s) with a reply to the Office action (see MPEP § 1490 for a discussion of terminal disclaimers). Such a response is required even when the nonstatutory double patenting rejection is provisional.
As filing a terminal disclaimer, or filing a showing that the claims subject to the rejection are patentably distinct from the reference application’s claims, is necessary for further consideration of the rejection of the claims, such a filing should not be held in abeyance. Only objections or requirements as to form not necessary for further consideration of the claims may be held in abeyance until allowable subject matter is indicated.
Claims 1-11 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-15 of copending Application No. 18/928,598 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the limitations of instant claims 1 and 10 are fully encompassed and met by the details of reference claim 1 which requires a first optical system, a second optical system, and a drive unit, reading on the claimed features of claim 1. Additionally, the limitations of instant claims 2-9 and 11 are fully encompassed and met by the details of reference claims 1-15.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-11 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-6, 8, and 31-47 of copending Application No. 17/898,589 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the limitations of instant claims 1 and 10 are fully encompassed and met by the details of each of reference claims 1 and 36 which require a first optical system, a second optical system, a first focus adjusting device, and a second focus adjusting device, reading on the claimed features of claim 1. Additionally, the limitations of instant claims 2-9 and 11 are fully encompassed and met by the details of reference claims 1-6, 8, and 31-47.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
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.
Claim(s) 1-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Willey (U.S. Patent No. 8,242,444).
Regarding claim 1, Willey teaches a lens apparatus comprising:
a first optical system (8) (See e.g. Figs. 1-6; C. 3, L. 62 – C. 4, L. 57);
a second optical system (9) disposed in parallel with the first optical system (See e.g. Figs. 1-6; C. 3, L. 62 – C. 4, L. 57);
a base member (15) configured to hold the first optical system and the second optical system movably in an optical axis direction (See e.g. Figs. 1-6; C. 3, L. 62 – C. 4, L. 57);
a first drive unit (17) configured to move the base member in the optical axis direction (See e.g. Figs. 1-6; C. 3, L. 62 – C. 4, L. 57; C. 6, L. 58 – C. 8, L. 2);
a first holder (19) configured to hold a part of a plurality of lenses constituting the second optical system (See e.g. Figs. 1-6; C. 3, L. 62 – C. 4, L. 57); and
a second drive unit (132, 134, 150, 152) configured to move the first holder in the optical axis direction (See e.g. Figs. 1 and 5-6; C. 8, L. 3-56).
Regarding claim 2, Willey teaches the lens apparatus according to claim 1, as above.
Willey further teaches that in a case where the lens apparatus is viewed along the optical axis direction, the second drive unit is disposed so as not to overlap a straight line connecting a first optical axis of the first optical system and a second optical axis of the second optical system, and the first drive unit is disposed so as not to overlap the second drive unit (See e.g. Figs. 1-6; C. 3, L. 62 – C. 4, L. 57; C. 6, L. 58 – C. 8, L. 56).
Regarding claim 3, Willey teaches the lens apparatus according to claim 1, as above.
Willey further teaches that in a case where the lens apparatus is viewed in a direction perpendicular to a first optical axis of the first optical system and a second optical axis of the second optical system, in which the first optical axis and the second optical axis overlap each other, at least a part of the first drive unit and at least a part of the second drive unit overlap each other at a position along the optical axis direction (See e.g. Figs. 1-6; C. 3, L. 62 – C. 4, L. 57; C. 6, L. 58 – C. 8, L. 56).
Regarding claim 4, Willey teaches the lens apparatus according to claim 1, as above.
Willey further teaches that each of the first optical system and the second optical system is a coaxial optical system (See e.g. Figs. 1-6; C. 3, L. 62 – C. 4, L. 57).
Regarding claim 5, Willey teaches the lens apparatus according to claim 1, as above.
Willey further teaches that the first drive unit includes a driving source and a transmission unit, and wherein in a case where the lens apparatus is viewed along the optical axis direction, the driving source is disposed so as not to overlap the second drive unit (See e.g. Figs. 1-6; C. 3, L. 62 – C. 4, L. 57; C. 6, L. 58 – C. 8, L. 56).
Regarding claim 6, Willey teaches the lens apparatus according to claim 1, as above.
Willey further teaches that the first drive unit moves the base member in the optical axis direction to perform focusing for the first optical system and the second optical system simultaneously, and wherein the second drive unit moves the part of the plurality of lenses constituting the second optical system in the optical axis direction to perform focus difference adjustment that adjusts a relative focus position shift between the first optical system and the second optical system (See e.g. Figs. 1-6; C. 3, L. 62 – C. 4, L. 57; C. 6, L. 58 – C. 8, L. 56).
Regarding claim 7, Willey teaches the lens apparatus according to claim 1, as above.
Willey further teaches a second holder (70) configured to hold at least a part of lenses of the first optical system; and a third holder (90) disposed in parallel with the second holder and configured to hold at least a part of lenses of the second optical system, wherein the second holder includes a second position adjuster (36, 48, 50, 52, 74, 78) configured to adjust a position of the second holder, and wherein the third holder includes a third position adjuster (42, 92, 100) configured to adjust a position of the third holder (See e.g. Figs. 1-5; C. 4, L. 58 – C. 6, L. 57).
Regarding claim 8, Willey teaches the lens apparatus according to claim 7, as above.
Willey further teaches that when the lens apparatus is viewed in a direction perpendicular to each of a first optical axis of the first optical system and a second optical axis of the second optical system, in which the first optical axis and the second optical axis overlap each other, the second drive unit is disposed so as to overlap each of the second position adjuster and the third position adjuster, and wherein in a case where the lens apparatus is viewed along the optical axis direction, the second drive unit is disposed so as not to overlap each of the second position adjuster and the third position adjuster (See e.g. Figs. 1-5; C. 4, L. 58 – C. 6, L. 57).
Regarding claim 9, Willey teaches the lens apparatus according to claim 7, as above.
Willey further teaches that the second position adjuster is configured to adjust and determine the position of the second holder, and wherein the third position adjuster is configured to adjust and determine the position of the third holder (See e.g. Figs. 1-5; C. 4, L. 58 – C. 6, L. 57).
Regarding claim 10, Willey teaches an image pickup apparatus comprising:
a lens apparatus (See e.g. Figs. 1-6; C. 3, L. 62 – C. 4, L. 57); and
an image sensor (22, 24) (See e.g. Figs. 1-2; C. 3, L. 62 – C. 4, L. 36);
wherein the lens apparatus includes:
a first optical system (8) (See e.g. Figs. 1-6; C. 3, L. 62 – C. 4, L. 57);
a second optical system (9) disposed in parallel with the first optical system (See e.g. Figs. 1-6; C. 3, L. 62 – C. 4, L. 57);
a base member (15) configured to hold the first optical system and the second optical system movably in an optical axis direction (See e.g. Figs. 1-6; C. 3, L. 62 – C. 4, L. 57);
a first drive unit (17) configured to move the base member in the optical axis direction (See e.g. Figs. 1-6; C. 3, L. 62 – C. 4, L. 57; C. 6, L. 58 – C. 8, L. 2);
a first holder (19) configured to hold a part of a plurality of lenses constituting the second optical system (See e.g. Figs. 1-6; C. 3, L. 62 – C. 4, L. 57); and
a second drive unit (132, 134, 150, 152) configured to move the first holder in the optical axis direction (See e.g. Figs. 1 and 5-6; C. 8, L. 3-56).
Claim(s) 1-10 is/are additionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gomi et al. (U.S. Patent No. 7,468,846; hereinafter – “Gomi”).
Regarding claim 1, Gomi teaches a lens apparatus comprising:
a first optical system (200, 202, 206) (See e.g. Figs. 1-2; C. 2, L. 62 – C. 3, L. 32);
a second optical system (100, 102, 106, 108) disposed in parallel with the first optical system (See e.g. Figs. 1-2; C. 2, L. 62 – C. 3, L. 32);
a base member (106, 206) configured to hold the first optical system and the second optical system movably in an optical axis direction (See e.g. Figs. 1-2; C. 2, L. 62 – C. 3, L. 32);
a first drive unit (400) configured to move the base member in the optical axis direction (See e.g. Figs. 1-2; C. 3, L. 33 – C. 4, L. 41);
a first holder (102, 104) configured to hold a part of a plurality of lenses constituting the second optical system (See e.g. Figs. 1-2; C. 3, L. 33 – C. 4, L. 41); and
a second drive unit (500) configured to move the first holder in the optical axis direction (See e.g. Figs. 1-2; C. 3, L. 33 – C. 4, L. 41).
Regarding claim 2, Gomi teaches the lens apparatus according to claim 1, as above.
Gomi further teaches that in a case where the lens apparatus is viewed along the optical axis direction, the second drive unit is disposed so as not to overlap a straight line connecting a first optical axis of the first optical system and a second optical axis of the second optical system, and the first drive unit is disposed so as not to overlap the second drive unit (See e.g. Figs. 1-2; C. 3, L. 33 – C. 4, L. 41).
Regarding claim 3, Gomi teaches the lens apparatus according to claim 1, as above.
Gomi further teaches that in a case where the lens apparatus is viewed in a direction perpendicular to a first optical axis of the first optical system and a second optical axis of the second optical system, in which the first optical axis and the second optical axis overlap each other, at least a part of the first drive unit and at least a part of the second drive unit overlap each other at a position along the optical axis direction (See e.g. Figs. 1-2; C. 3, L. 33 – C. 4, L. 41).
Regarding claim 4, Gomi teaches the lens apparatus according to claim 1, as above.
Gomi further teaches that each of the first optical system and the second optical system is a coaxial optical system (See e.g. Figs. 1-2; C. 3, L. 33 – C. 4, L. 41).
Regarding claim 5, Gomi teaches the lens apparatus according to claim 1, as above.
Gomi further teaches that the first drive unit includes a driving source (400) and a transmission unit (230), and wherein in a case where the lens apparatus is viewed along the optical axis direction, the driving source is disposed so as not to overlap the second drive unit (See e.g. Figs. 1-2; C. 3, L. 33 – C. 4, L. 41).
Regarding claim 6, Gomi teaches the lens apparatus according to claim 1, as above.
Gomi further teaches that the first drive unit moves the base member in the optical axis direction to perform focusing for the first optical system and the second optical system simultaneously, and wherein the second drive unit moves the part of the plurality of lenses constituting the second optical system in the optical axis direction to perform focus difference adjustment that adjusts a relative focus position shift between the first optical system and the second optical system (See e.g. Figs. 1-2; C. 3, L. 33 – C. 4, L. 41).
Regarding claim 7, Gomi teaches the lens apparatus according to claim 1, as above.
Gomi further teaches a second holder (202) configured to hold at least a part of lenses of the first optical system; and a third holder (102) disposed in parallel with the second holder and configured to hold at least a part of lenses of the second optical system, wherein the second holder includes a second position adjuster (300, 220) configured to adjust a position of the second holder, and wherein the third holder includes a third position adjuster (300, 120) configured to adjust a position of the third holder (See e.g. Figs. 1-2; C. 3, L. 33 – C. 4, L. 41).
Regarding claim 8, Gomi teaches the lens apparatus according to claim 7, as above.
Gomi further teaches that when the lens apparatus is viewed in a direction perpendicular to each of a first optical axis of the first optical system and a second optical axis of the second optical system, in which the first optical axis and the second optical axis overlap each other, the second drive unit is disposed so as to overlap each of the second position adjuster and the third position adjuster, and wherein in a case where the lens apparatus is viewed along the optical axis direction, the second drive unit is disposed so as not to overlap each of the second position adjuster and the third position adjuster (See e.g. Figs. 1-2; C. 3, L. 33 – C. 4, L. 41).
Regarding claim 9, Gomi teaches the lens apparatus according to claim 7, as above.
Gomi further teaches that the second position adjuster is configured to adjust and determine the position of the second holder, and wherein the third position adjuster is configured to adjust and determine the position of the third holder (See e.g. Figs. 1-2; C. 3, L. 33 – C. 4, L. 41).
Regarding claim 10, Gomi teaches an image pickup apparatus comprising:
a lens apparatus (See e.g. Figs. 1-2; C. 2, L. 62 – C. 3, L. 32); and
an image sensor (110, 210) (See e.g. Figs. 1-2; C. 2, L. 62 – C. 3, L. 32);
wherein the lens apparatus includes:
a first optical system (200, 202, 206) (See e.g. Figs. 1-2; C. 2, L. 62 – C. 3, L. 32);
a second optical system (100, 102, 106, 108) disposed in parallel with the first optical system (See e.g. Figs. 1-2; C. 2, L. 62 – C. 3, L. 32);
a base member (106, 206) configured to hold the first optical system and the second optical system movably in an optical axis direction (See e.g. Figs. 1-2; C. 2, L. 62 – C. 3, L. 32);
a first drive unit (400) configured to move the base member in the optical axis direction (See e.g. Figs. 1-2; C. 3, L. 33 – C. 4, L. 41);
a first holder (102, 104) configured to hold a part of a plurality of lenses constituting the second optical system (See e.g. Figs. 1-2; C. 3, L. 33 – C. 4, L. 41); and
a second drive unit (500) configured to move the first holder in the optical axis direction (See e.g. Figs. 1-2; C. 3, L. 33 – C. 4, L. 41).
Claim(s) 1-9 is/are additionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kato et al. (Japanese Patent Pub. No. JP H10-62673). All citations to Kato are directed toward the English machine translation of the Japanese document, provided as a reference.
Regarding claim 1, Kato teaches a lens apparatus comprising:
a first optical system (1) (See e.g. Figs. 1, 3, 5, and 16; Paragraphs 0012-0013);
a second optical system (2) disposed in parallel with the first optical system (See e.g. Figs. 1, 3, 5, and 16; Paragraphs 0012-0013);
a base member (15) configured to hold the first optical system and the second optical system movably in an optical axis direction (See e.g. Figs. 1, 3, 5, and 16; Paragraphs 0003, 0013, 0042, and 0071-0072);
a first drive unit (11, 13) configured to move the base member in the optical axis direction (See e.g. Figs. 1-7 and 16; Paragraphs 0012-0014, 0042, and 0071-0074);
a first holder (16) configured to hold a part of a plurality of lenses constituting the second optical system (See e.g. Fig. 5; Paragraphs 0003, 0013, 0042, and 0071-0072); and
a second drive unit (18, 19) configured to move the first holder in the optical axis direction (See e.g. Figs. 5-6; Paragraphs 0071-0074).
Regarding claim 2, Kato teaches the lens apparatus according to claim 1, as above.
Kato further teaches that in a case where the lens apparatus is viewed along the optical axis direction, the second drive unit is disposed so as not to overlap a straight line connecting a first optical axis of the first optical system and a second optical axis of the second optical system, and the first drive unit is disposed so as not to overlap the second drive unit (See e.g. Figs. 1-7 and 16; Paragraphs 0012-0014, 0042, and 0071-0074).
Regarding claim 3, Kato teaches the lens apparatus according to claim 1, as above.
Kato further teaches that in a case where the lens apparatus is viewed in a direction perpendicular to a first optical axis of the first optical system and a second optical axis of the second optical system, in which the first optical axis and the second optical axis overlap each other, at least a part of the first drive unit and at least a part of the second drive unit overlap each other at a position along the optical axis direction (See e.g. Figs. 1-7 and 16; Paragraphs 0012-0014, 0042, and 0071-0074).
Regarding claim 4, Kato teaches the lens apparatus according to claim 1, as above.
Kato further teaches that each of the first optical system and the second optical system is a coaxial optical system (See e.g. Figs. 1, 3, 5, and 16; Paragraphs 0012-0013).
Regarding claim 5, Kato teaches the lens apparatus according to claim 1, as above.
Kato further teaches that the first drive unit includes a driving source (11) and a transmission unit (13), and wherein in a case where the lens apparatus is viewed along the optical axis direction, the driving source is disposed so as not to overlap the second drive unit (See e.g. Figs. 1-7 and 16; Paragraphs 0012-0014, 0042, and 0071-0074).
Regarding claim 6, Kato teaches the lens apparatus according to claim 1, as above.
Kato further teaches that the first drive unit moves the base member in the optical axis direction to perform focusing for the first optical system and the second optical system simultaneously, and wherein the second drive unit moves the part of the plurality of lenses constituting the second optical system in the optical axis direction to perform focus difference adjustment that adjusts a relative focus position shift between the first optical system and the second optical system (See e.g. Figs. 1-7 and 16; Paragraphs 0012-0014, 0042, and 0071-0074).
Regarding claim 7, Kato teaches the lens apparatus according to claim 1, as above.
Kato further teaches a second holder (7) configured to hold at least a part of lenses of the first optical system; and a third holder (8) disposed in parallel with the second holder and configured to hold at least a part of lenses of the second optical system, wherein the second holder includes a second position adjuster configured to adjust a position of the second holder, and wherein the third holder includes a third position adjuster configured to adjust a position of the third holder (See e.g. Figs. 1-7 and 16; Paragraphs 0012-0014, 0042, and 0071-0074).
Regarding claim 8, Kato teaches the lens apparatus according to claim 7, as above.
Kato further teaches that when the lens apparatus is viewed in a direction perpendicular to each of a first optical axis of the first optical system and a second optical axis of the second optical system, in which the first optical axis and the second optical axis overlap each other, the second drive unit is disposed so as to overlap each of the second position adjuster and the third position adjuster, and wherein in a case where the lens apparatus is viewed along the optical axis direction, the second drive unit is disposed so as not to overlap each of the second position adjuster and the third position adjuster (See e.g. Figs. 1-7 and 16; Paragraphs 0012-0014, 0042, and 0071-0074).
Regarding claim 9, Kato teaches the lens apparatus according to claim 7, as above.
Kato further teaches that the second position adjuster is configured to adjust and determine the position of the second holder, and wherein the third position adjuster is configured to adjust and determine the position of the third holder (See e.g. Figs. 1-7 and 16; Paragraphs 0012-0014, 0042, and 0071-0074).
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) 7-9 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Willey or Gomi in view of Murakami, I et al. (U.S. PG-Pub No. 2021/0088893; hereinafter – “Murakami”).
Regarding claim 7, Willey and Gomi each teaches the lens apparatus according to claim 1, as above.
Willey further teaches a second holder (70) configured to hold at least a part of lenses of the first optical system; and a third holder (90) disposed in parallel with the second holder and configured to hold at least a part of lenses of the second optical system, wherein the second holder includes a second position adjuster (36, 48, 50, 52, 74, 78) configured to adjust a position of the second holder, and wherein the third holder includes a third position adjuster (42, 92, 100) configured to adjust a position of the third holder (See e.g. Figs. 1-5; C. 4, L. 58 – C. 6, L. 57).
Gomi further teaches a second holder (202) configured to hold at least a part of lenses of the first optical system; and a third holder (102) disposed in parallel with the second holder and configured to hold at least a part of lenses of the second optical system, wherein the second holder includes a second position adjuster (300, 220) configured to adjust a position of the second holder, and wherein the third holder includes a third position adjuster (300, 120) configured to adjust a position of the third holder (See e.g. Figs. 1-2; C. 3, L. 33 – C. 4, L. 41).
Nevertheless, in the interest of compact prosecution, Examiner further submits reference Murakami.
Murakami teaches a lens apparatus and image pickup apparatus comprising a first optical system (201R), a second optical system (201L) disposed in parallel with the first optical system, a base member (203) configured to hold the first optical system and the second optical system movably in an optical axis direction, a first holder (231) configured to hold a part of a plurality of lenses constituting the second optical system, a second holder (213) configured to hold at least a part of lenses of the first optical system; and a third holder (213) disposed in parallel with the second holder and configured to hold at least a part of lenses of the second optical system, wherein the second holder includes a second position adjuster (214) configured to adjust a position of the second holder, and wherein the third holder includes a third position adjuster (214) configured to adjust a position of the third holder (See e.g. Figs. 1-5; Paragraphs 0026-0036).
Murakami teaches this second and third holder to “provide a compact lens apparatus and image pickup apparatus, each of which can properly set a baseline length and obtain a natural stereoscopic effect” (Paragraph 0045) in order to provide “a lens apparatus for stereoscopic photography capable of forming two images with a parallax through the first and second optical systems” (Paragraph 0018).
Therefore, even if Willy or Gomi did not disclose the claimed second and third holder, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the image pickup apparatus of Willey or Gomi with the second and third holder of Murakami to “provide a compact lens apparatus and image pickup apparatus, each of which can properly set a baseline length and obtain a natural stereoscopic effect” in order to provide “a lens apparatus for stereoscopic photography capable of forming two images with a parallax through the first and second optical systems,” as taught by Murakami (Paragraphs 0018 and 0045).
Regarding claim 8, Willey in view of Murakami and Gomi in view of Murakami each teaches the lens apparatus according to claim 7, as above.
Willey further teaches that when the lens apparatus is viewed in a direction perpendicular to each of a first optical axis of the first optical system and a second optical axis of the second optical system, in which the first optical axis and the second optical axis overlap each other, the second drive unit is disposed so as to overlap each of the second position adjuster and the third position adjuster, and wherein in a case where the lens apparatus is viewed along the optical axis direction, the second drive unit is disposed so as not to overlap each of the second position adjuster and the third position adjuster (See e.g. Figs. 1-5; C. 4, L. 58 – C. 6, L. 57).
Gomi further teaches that when the lens apparatus is viewed in a direction perpendicular to each of a first optical axis of the first optical system and a second optical axis of the second optical system, in which the first optical axis and the second optical axis overlap each other, the second drive unit is disposed so as to overlap each of the second position adjuster and the third position adjuster, and wherein in a case where the lens apparatus is viewed along the optical axis direction, the second drive unit is disposed so as not to overlap each of the second position adjuster and the third position adjuster (See e.g. Figs. 1-2; C. 3, L. 33 – C. 4, L. 41).
Additionally, Murakami further teaches that when the lens apparatus is viewed in a direction perpendicular to each of a first optical axis of the first optical system and a second optical axis of the second optical system, in which the first optical axis and the second optical axis overlap each other, the second drive unit is disposed so as to overlap each of the second position adjuster and the third position adjuster, and wherein in a case where the lens apparatus is viewed along the optical axis direction, the second drive unit is disposed so as not to overlap each of the second position adjuster and the third position adjuster (See e.g. Figs. 1-5; Paragraphs 0026-0036).
Regarding claim 9, Willey in view of Murakami and Gomi in view of Murakami each teaches the lens apparatus according to claim 7, as above.
Willey further teaches that the second position adjuster is configured to adjust and determine the position of the second holder, and wherein the third position adjuster is configured to adjust and determine the position of the third holder (See e.g. Figs. 1-5; C. 4, L. 58 – C. 6, L. 57).
Gomi further teaches that the second position adjuster is configured to adjust and determine the position of the second holder, and wherein the third position adjuster is configured to adjust and determine the position of the third holder (See e.g. Figs. 1-2; C. 3, L. 33 – C. 4, L. 41).
Additionally, Murakami further teaches that the second position adjuster is configured to adjust and determine the position of the second holder, and wherein the third position adjuster is configured to adjust and determine the position of the third holder (See e.g. Figs. 1-5; Paragraphs 0026-0036).
Regarding claim 11, Willey and Gomi each teaches the image pickup apparatus according to claim 10, as above.
Willey and Gomi fail to explicitly disclose that the image sensor is a single image sensor configured to photoelectrically convert a first optical image formed by the first optical system and a second optical image formed by the second optical system.
However, Murakami teaches a lens apparatus and image pickup apparatus comprising a first optical system (201R), a second optical system (201L) disposed in parallel with the first optical system and a single image sensor (111) configured to photoelectrically convert a first optical image formed by the first optical system and a second optical image formed by the second optical system (See e.g. Figs. 1-6; Paragraphs 0018 and 0037-0043).
Murakami teaches this single image sensor to “provide a compact lens apparatus and image pickup apparatus, each of which can properly set a baseline length and obtain a natural stereoscopic effect” (Paragraph 0045) in order to provide “a lens apparatus for stereoscopic photography capable of forming two images with a parallax through the first and second optical systems” (Paragraph 0018).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the image pickup apparatus of Willey or Gomi with the single image sensor of Murakami to “provide a compact lens apparatus and image pickup apparatus, each of which can properly set a baseline length and obtain a natural stereoscopic effect” in order to provide “a lens apparatus for stereoscopic photography capable of forming two images with a parallax through the first and second optical systems,” as taught by Murakami (Paragraphs 0018 and 0045), and since it has been held that forming in one piece an article which has formerly been formed into two pieces and put together involves only routine skill in the art. In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Bechtel (U.S. PG-Pub No. 2018/0077404) teaches a device for capturing a stereoscopic image including first and second optical systems in a lens holder and base.
Morita et al. (U.S. PG-Pub No. 2013/0170029) teaches a lens unit with first and second parallel optical systems on movable holders.
Miyamoto et al. (U.S. PG-Pub Nos. 2013/0027792 & 2013/0021684) teach a lens unit with first and second optical systems that are arranged in similar configurations.
Kawasaki et al. (U.S. PG-Pub No. 2012/0062704) teaches a 3-D image pickup apparatus comprising similar optical systems with mutually adjustable zoom, focus, and convergence.
Funatsu (U.S. Patent No. 5,999,312) teaches a binocular with first and second optical systems in a similar arrangement.
Nishiara (PCT Pub. No. WO 2020/246030 A1) teaches a stereo imaging device and endoscope comprising similar optical systems and lens holders.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Nicholas R Pasko whose telephone number is (571)270-1876. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 AM - 5 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, William Kraig can be reached at 571-272-8660. 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.
Nicholas R. Pasko
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2896
/Nicholas R. Pasko/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2896
Prosecution Insights