DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1, 12-13 and 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugasawa (JP 2006262580) in view of Zen (JP2011137745). Sugasawa teaches an iris mechanism, configured to increase or decrease a passing area of light in a direction of an optical axis (see fig 6), comprising: a frame portion (21) formed around the optical axis; an iris blade (22, 23) capable of moving relative to the frame portion in a direction intersecting the optical axis and capable of changing an opening area of an opening in the direction of the optical axis along with a movement of the iris blade (figs. 6-7); and a drive portion (35) configured to drive the iris blade to move, wherein the drive source is configured to extend and retract in a linear direction according to energization to generate a drive force in the linear direction; a conversion portion (29) configured to convert the drive force in the linear direction of the drive source into a rotational drive force; and a rotational transfer portion (31 , 32) continuous with the conversion portion and connected to the iris blade for rotational movement based on a rotation center. Sugasawa teaches the salient features of the claimed invention except for the linear driver being an SIDM. Zen teaches in ¶30 that it was known to use an SIDM to drive an iris mechanism. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to utilize the features of Zen for the purpose of miniaturization.
Regarding claim 12, the iris blade 27/28 is supported by an end portion31a of the rotational transfer portion on a side away from the rotation center. See fig. 7.
Regarding claim 13, the iris blade has an elongated hole (25) extending along direction orthogonal to a movement direction relative to the frame portion and the direction of the optical axis, and the end portion of the rotational transfer portion is connected to the elongated hole.
Regarding claim 15, the end portion of the rotational transfer portion is connected to the elongated hole 25 by bringing a connection protrusion 31 into the elongated hole, and the connection protrusion protrudes in the end portion parallel to a rotation axis of the rotational transfer portion. See fig. 7.
Regarding claim 16, the connection protrusion is cylindrical.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugasawa (JP 2006262580) in view of Zen (JP2006072242) and further in view of Takizawa (JP2006072242). Sugasawa as modified teaches the salient features of the claimed invention except for two combined pairs of the iris blade and the drive portion are provided, and sandwich the optical axis in the direction intersecting the optical axis. Takizawa teaches in fig. 1 and ¶¶21-24 that it was known to use two combined pairs of the iris blade and the drive portion are provided, and sandwich the optical axis in the direction intersecting the optical axis. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to utilize the features of Takizawa for the purpose of reducing size, weight and the manufacturing cost. The applicant should note that it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involve only routine skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugasawa (JP 2006262580) in view of Zen (JP2006072242) and further in view of Tanigoshi (JP58122522). Sugasawa as modified teaches the salient features of the claimed invention except for the rotational transfer portion is provided with a permanent magnet curved along a circumferential direction based on the rotation center; and the frame portion is provided with a magnetic detection element at a position opposing the permanent magnet in the direction of the optical axis. Tanigoshi teaches a permanent magnet (28) curved along a circumferential direction based on the rotation center; and the frame portion is provided with a magnetic detection element (30) at a position opposing the permanent magnet in the direction of the optical axis. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to utilize the features of Tanigoshi for the purpose of proper control of aperture size.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugasawa (JP 2006262580) in view of Zen (JP2006072242) and further in view of Shikama (CN107407854). Sugasawa as modified teaches the salient features of the claimed invention except for a ball is provided in the frame portion at a portion providing to the support portion. Shikama teaches that it was known to provide a ball (7A) in the frame portion at a portion providing the support portion. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to utilize the features of Shikama for the purpose of smoother movement.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-10, 14 and 17-19 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Iwasaki (U.S. Publication No. 20070053684) teaches an iris mechanism, configured to increase or decrease a passing area of light in a direction of an optical axis, comprising: a frame portion formed around the optical axis; an iris blade capable of moving relative to the frame portion in a direction intersecting the optical axis and capable of changing an opening area of an opening in the direction of the optical axis along with a movement of the iris blade; and a drive portion configured to drive the iris blade. Uno (WO2024174062) utilizes a SIDM to drive an iris.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER E MAHONEY whose telephone number is (571)272-2122. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5:30.
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, Stephanie Bloss can be reached at 571-272-3555. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER E MAHONEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2852
