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
Acknowledgment is made of receipt of Information Disclosure Statement (PTO-1449) filed 12/06/2024. An initialed copy is attached to this Office Action.
Claim Objections
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 3 recites “the adjusting member”. There is no prior mention of “the adjusting member” and so it is assumed that the claim improperly depends on claim 6 instead of depending on claim 8. For the purpose of continuing examination, it is assumed that claim 9 depends on claim 8. Appropriate correction is required.
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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 4-7 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kabe et al. (USP No. 6,483,994), hereinafter “Kabe”, in view of Masahiko (JP 2018-097254 A).
Regarding claim 1, Kabe discloses a lens apparatus (2) (see Fig. 5) comprising: a cam barrel (24) formed with a first cam groove (34) and a second cam groove (32) and configured to rotate about an optical axis (see Figs. 5, 8, Col. 3, Lines 1-5); a first holder (56) including a first cam follower (58) and configured to move along the optical axis in accordance with rotation of the cam barrel (24), the first cam follower (58) being configured to engage with the first cam groove (34) (Col. 3, Lines 54-65); a second holder (22) including a second cam follower (28) and configured to move along the optical axis in accordance with rotation of the cam barrel (24), the second cam follower (28) being configured to engage with the second cam groove (32) (Col. 3, Lines 6-11); a first guide member (72) configured to guide; and a first biasing member (113) configured to urge the first holder (56) in an optical axis direction (see Fig. 5, Col. 6, Lines 19-40), wherein width of the first cam groove (34) is larger than width of the first cam follower (58) (Col. 6, Lines 28-40 – in order for a gap to exist, the cam groove would have to be wider than at least a portion of the cam follower where the gap exists), and wherein the first biasing member (113) is held by the first holder (56) and the second holder (22 via 106) (see Fig. 5, Col. 5, Lines 47-48, Col. 6, Lines 19-40). Kabe discloses the claimed invention, but does not specify the first guide member configured to guide the first holder movably along the optical axis. In the same field of endeavor, Masahiko discloses the first guide member (7, 8) configured to guide the first holder (2, 3) movably along the optical axis (Abstract). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the lens apparatus of Kabe with the first guide member configured to guide the first holder movably along the optical axis of Masahiko for the purpose of guiding the movable lens unit in the optical axis direction (Abstract).
Regarding claim 4, Kabe further discloses wherein when projected onto an image plane in a direction parallel to the optical axis, distance between the first biasing member (113) and the first cam follower (58) is shorter than distance between the first biasing member (113) and the first guide member (72) (see Fig. 5, Col. 6, Lines 19-40). In addition, it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Regarding claim 5, Kabe further discloses further comprising a lens (48) held by the first holder (56), wherein biasing force of the first biasing member (113) is larger than a sum of weight of the first holder (56) and weight of the lens (48) (see Fig. 5, Col. 6, Lines 19-40). In order for the force of the spring 113 to prevent shaking of the lens frames, the force would need to be greater than the total weight.
Regarding claim 6, Kabe discloses wherein the first cam follower (58) is capable of adjusting the first holder (56) in the optical axis direction (Col. 3, Lines 54-65). Kabe discloses the claimed invention, but does not specify an eccentric roller (15) (Pg. 6, Paragraphs 5-6 of translation provided). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the lens apparatus of Kabe with an eccentric roller of Masahiko for the purpose of adjusting the tilt position (Pg. 6, Paragraph 6).
Regarding claim 7, Kabe discloses wherein a contact position of the follower (58) with the first cam groove (34) changes in accordance with rotation of the cam barrel (see Fig. 8). Kabe and Masahiko teach the lens apparatus set forth above for claim 6, Masahiko further discloses the eccentric roller (15) (Pg. 6, Paragraph 5). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to provide the lens apparatus of Kabe with the teachings of Masahiko for at least the same reasons as those set forth above with respect to claim 6.
Regarding claim 15, Kabe discloses an image pickup apparatus (see Fig. 5) comprising: a lens apparatus (2) (see Fig. 5); and an image sensor (18) (see Fig. 5), wherein the lens apparatus includes: a cam barrel (24) formed with a first cam groove (34) and a second cam groove (32) and configured to rotate about an optical axis (see Figs. 5, 8, Col. 3, Lines 1-5); a first holder (56) including a first cam follower (58) and configured to move along the optical axis in accordance with rotation of the cam barrel (24), the first cam follower (58) being configured to engage with the first cam groove (34) (Col. 3, Lines 54-65); a second holder (22) including a second cam follower (28) and configured to move along the optical axis in accordance with rotation of the cam barrel (24), the second cam follower (28) being configured to engage with the second cam groove (32) (Col. 3, Lines 6-11); a first guide member (72) configured to guide; and a first biasing member (113) configured to urge the first holder (56) in an optical axis direction (see Fig. 5, Col. 6, Lines 19-40), wherein width of the first cam groove (34) is larger than width of the first cam follower (58) (Col. 6, Lines 28-40 – in order for a gap to exist, the cam groove would have to be wider than at least a portion of the cam follower where the gap exists), and wherein the first biasing member (113) is held by the first holder (56) and the second holder (22 via 106) (see Fig. 5, Col. 5, Lines 47-48, Col. 6, Lines 19-40). Kabe discloses the claimed invention, but does not specify the first guide member configured to guide the first holder movably along the optical axis. In the same field of endeavor, Masahiko discloses the first guide member (7, 8) configured to guide the first holder (2, 3) movably along the optical axis (Abstract). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the lens apparatus of Kabe with the first guide member configured to guide the first holder movably along the optical axis of Masahiko for the purpose of guiding the movable lens unit in the optical axis direction (Abstract).
Claims 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kabe (USP No. 6,483,994) in view of Masahiko (JP 2018-097254 A) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Honsho (USP No. 7,414,801).
Regarding claim 2, Kabe and Masahiko disclose the claimed invention except for wherein the first guide member is held by the first holder and inserted through the second holder. In the same field of endeavor, Honsho discloses wherein the first guide member (135A) is held by the first holder (132) and inserted through the second holder (133) (see Fig. 1, Col. 5, Lines 49-50, 60-61, Col. 7, lines 46-47). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the lens apparatus of Kabe and Masahiko with wherein the first guide member is held by the first holder and inserted through the second holder of Honsho for the purpose of providing movement of the first lens frame in a direction parallel to the optical axis (Col. 7, Lines 46-47).
Regarding claim 3, Kabe and Masahiko disclose the claimed invention except for wherein the first guide member is held by the second holder and inserted through the first holder. In the same field of endeavor, Honsho discloses wherein the first guide member (135A) is held by the second holder (132) and inserted through the first holder (133) (see Fig. 1, Col. 5, Lines 49-50, 60-61, Col. 7, lines 46-47). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the lens apparatus of Kabe and Masahiko with wherein the first guide member is held by the second holder and inserted through the first holder of Honsho for the purpose of providing movement of the first lens frame in a direction parallel to the optical axis (Col. 7, Lines 46-47).
Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kabe (USP No. 6,483,994) in view of Masahiko (JP 2018-097254 A) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Iwasawa et al. (USP No. 8,331,040), hereinafter “Iwasawa”.
Regarding claim 8, Kabe and Masahiko disclose the claimed invention except for further comprising an adjusting member disposed between the first holder and the lens and configured to adjust distance between the first holder and the lens in the optical axis direction. In the same field of endeavor, Iwasawa discloses further comprising an adjusting member (60) disposed between the first holder and the lens and configured to adjust distance between the first holder and the lens in the optical axis direction (see Figs. 6B, 6C, Col. 5, Lines 21-28). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the lens apparatus of Kabe and Masahiko with further comprising an adjusting member disposed between the first holder and the lens and configured to adjust distance between the first holder and the lens in the optical axis direction of Iwasawa for the purpose of correcting focus deviations (Col. 5, Line 28).
Regarding claim 9, Kabe, Masahiko and Iwasawa disclose the claimed invention, but do not specify wherein a maximum adjustable amount with the eccentric roller is smaller than a maximum adjustable amount with the adjusting member. It has been held that the provision of adjustability, where needed, involves only routine skill in the art. In re Stevens, 101 USPQ 284 (CCPA 1954). It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim 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 (CCPA 1955). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the lens apparatus of Kabe, Masahiko and Iwasawa with wherein a maximum adjustable amount with the eccentric roller is smaller than a maximum adjustable amount with the adjusting member for the purpose of correcting deviations (Col. 5, Line 28 of Iwasawa).
Claims 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kabe (USP No. 6,483,994) in view of Masahiko (JP 2018-097254 A) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Abe (USPG Pub No. 2021/0255416).
Regarding claim 10, Kabe and Masahiko disclose the claimed invention except for further comprising: a second guide member configured to regulate movement of the first holder in a rotational direction about the optical axis; and a second biasing member configured to urge the first holder against the second guide member. In the same field of endeavor, Abe discloses further comprising: a second guide member (114) configured to regulate movement of the first holder (112) in a rotational direction about the optical axis (Paragraphs 31, 33); and a second biasing member (120) configured to urge the first holder (112) against the second guide member (114) (Paragraphs 31, 33). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the lens apparatus of Kabe and Masahiko with further comprising: a second guide member configured to regulate movement of the first holder in a rotational direction about the optical axis; and a second biasing member configured to urge the first holder against the second guide member of Abe for the purpose of providing a driving apparatus that can satisfactorily guide a lens holder while reducing negative influences (Paragraphs 3, 4).
Regarding claim 11, Kabe, Masahiko and Abe disclose the claimed invention, but do not specify wherein the second biasing member includes an introduction part with an oblique shape relative to the optical axis direction. It has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.Such a modification would have involved a mere change in the shape of a component. A change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the lens apparatus of Kabe, Masahiko and Abe with wherein the second biasing member includes an introduction part with an oblique shape relative to the optical axis direction for the purpose of providing a driving apparatus that can satisfactorily guide a lens holder while reducing negative influences (Paragraphs 3, 4 of Abe).
Regarding claim 12, Kabe, Masahiko and Abe disclose the claimed invention, but do not specify wherein when projected onto an image plane in a direction parallel to the optical axis, distance between the first guide member and the second biasing member is longer than distance between the first guide member and the first cam follower. It has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim 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 (CCPA 1955). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the lens apparatus of Kabe, Masahiko and Abe with wherein when projected onto an image plane in a direction parallel to the optical axis, distance between the first guide member and the second biasing member is longer than distance between the first guide member and the first cam follower for the purpose of providing a driving apparatus that can satisfactorily guide a lens holder while reducing negative influences (Paragraphs 3, 4 of Abe).
Regarding claim 13, Kabe, Masahiko and Abe disclose the claimed invention, but do not specify wherein when projected onto an image plane in a direction parallel to the optical axis, distance between the first guide member and the second guide member is longer than distance between the first guide member and the second biasing member. It has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim 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 (CCPA 1955). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the lens apparatus of Kabe, Masahiko and Abe with wherein when projected onto an image plane in a direction parallel to the optical axis, distance between the first guide member and the second guide member is longer than distance between the first guide member and the second biasing member for the purpose of providing a driving apparatus that can satisfactorily guide a lens holder while reducing negative influences (Paragraphs 3, 4 of Abe).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kabe (USP No. 6,483,994) in view of Masahiko (JP 2018-097254 A) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ito (USP No. 12,099,254).
Regarding claim 14, Kabe and Masahiko disclose the claimed invention except for further comprising a guide barrel disposed inside the cam barrel, wherein the first holder includes a contact part that contacts the guide barrel in a case where the lens apparatus is subjected to an external impact. In the same field of endeavor, Ito discloses further comprising a guide barrel (11) disposed inside the cam barrel (12), wherein the first holder includes a contact part that contacts the guide barrel (11) in a case where the lens apparatus is subjected to an external impact (see Fig. 6A). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the lens apparatus of Kabe and Masahiko with further comprising a guide barrel disposed inside the cam barrel, wherein the first holder includes a contact part that contacts the guide barrel in a case where the lens apparatus is subjected to an external impact of Ito for the purpose of effectively suppressing looseness between the elements (Col. 2, Line 34).
Prior Art Citations
Sato (USPG Pub No. 2020/0049929) is being cited herein to show a lens apparatus relevant to the claimed invention.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAHIDERE S SAHLE whose telephone number is (571)270-3329. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:00 AM to 5:00 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, Ricky Mack can be reached at 571 272-2333. 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.
/MAHIDERE S SAHLE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872 8/22/2026
Prosecution Insights