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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 1-3 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Miyamoto et al (US Patent 5,559,571).
With regard to claims 1 and 7: Miyamoto disclose an optical apparatus which comprises: a first optical element (focusing lens group L4) and a second optical element (lens group L3) which are supported so as to be movable in an optical axis direction (see column 12 lines 62-67 disclosing movement of L3 in the optical axis direction and column 13 lines 8-12 disclosing movement of L4 in the optical axis direction), a first driving unit (focusing motor 53) which is configured to drive the first optical element, a second driving unit (motors 21X and 21Y) which are configured to drive the second optical element (examiner notes that as claimed neither of the first or second driving units are required to be mechanisms which move the optical elements in the optical axis direction) a support member (combination of lens barrel 2 and lens base 5), a first circuit component which constitutes the first driving unit (a ring-shaped mounting board 64 to which the motor is soldered, see column 18 lines 37-44, and flexible printed circuit FCB 65 which is integrated with the mounting board as discussed in column 18 lines 45-61) and a second circuit component constituting the second driving unit (the flexible printed circuit FPC board 61 shown in Figure 17 which is integrated with the FPC 63 as shown in Figure 19, see discussion in column 19 line 20 - column 20 line 4. as well as photo interrupters 32a, 32b, 33a, and 33b which are visible in Figure 6 and to a lesser degree Figure 8), and a circuit board 66 on which the first circuit component and the second circuit component are mounted (see column 19 lines 2-7). In the arrangement of Miyamoto both of the first driving unit and the second drive unit overlap with a corresponding one of the first circuit component and the second circuit component in the optical axis direction, as the circuit components are positioned such that portions of the FCBs and mounting board overlap with the motors to allow insertion of electrical leads and (in the case of the second circuit component) the photo interrupters which measure motion of the first driving unit must extend around the rotation shafts of the motors of the second driving component to accommodate the pulse-generating discs 31X and 31Y.
With regard to claim 2: Since claim 1 does not impart any distinction between the first driving unit and the second driving unit beyond the ordinal label applied to them, Miyamoto can be reasonably considered to meet the limitations of claim 2 by reversing the
With regard to claim 3: The second circuit component of Miyamoto is disclosed and shown as being positioned closer to the object side of the optical apparatus than the second driving unit.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 12 is allowed.
Claims 4-7 and 9-11 are 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
With regard to claims 4-6 and 9-10: The prior art of record does not disclose an optical apparatus having the claimed structure. While each of the structures (vibration wave motor, VCM, dual second driving units arranged on both sides of an optical axis, guide members, and booster transformers and power supply inductors) claimed in the dependent claims are known in the art, the structures in the prior art of record which they are incorporated within are distinctly different from structures which have circuit elements arranged overlapping with drive units in the optical axis direction as claimed. See for examples Tanaka (US Patent 7,604,421 B2, disclosing guide elements); Miyoshi (US Patent 7,978,250 B2, disclosing a VCM unit for shake correction, note that Miyoshi cites Miyamoto as prior art improved upon); and Sakai et al (US Patent 11,513,313 B2, discloses an ultrasonic wave motor).
With regard to claim 11: In prior art systems the overlapping of circuit elements is a consequence of the lens being capable of changing focal length, the movement of the lens carries during this adjustment requiring that circuit elements be affixed to the lens carries in a way that overlaps with drive units instead of being positioned along the inner or outer circumferential portions of fixed lens barrel elements.
With regard to claim 12: The prior art discussing overlapping circuit elements is relatively old, from before when image sensor units were commonplace. While it is generally very obvious in the art to replace film with an image sensor, the prior art does not teach arrangements of motors and circuit elements which would reasonably meet the claimed configuration, and to the degree that the prior art does discuss overlapping circuit elements with drive units the prior art teaches that it should be avoided to achieve a more compact design or reduce noise, see Yumiki et al (US Patent 8,339,503 B2) discussing Figures 13-14 in column 18 lines 41-64.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Leon W Rhodes Jr whose telephone number is (571)270-5774. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00AM - 6:00PM.
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, Walter Lindsay can be reached at (571) 272-1674. 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.
/LEON W RHODES, JR/Examiner, Art Unit 2852
Prosecution Insights