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 .
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: “driving unit” in claim 1.
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 § 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Miyoshi, US 20170261722.
Claim 1: Miyoshi discloses a lens barrel comprising:
a moving unit (Fig. 1: optical unit 14) having a first protrusion (followers 14b. ¶ 31.);
a driving unit configured to move the moving unit straight in an optical axis direction (Linear actuator 14 moves the optical unit 14 in the optical axis direction. ¶¶ 31 and 35.);
a first barrel having a first cam groove, which engages with the first protrusion, and a second cam groove (Cam cylinder 21 is a first barrel having first and second cam grooves. ¶¶ 27-28 and Fig. 1. As depicted in Fig. 1, the first cam grooves engage with followers 14b); and
a first lens holding frame that has a second protrusion (Optical unit 11 is a lens holding frame and has followers 11b. ¶ 28 and Fig. 1), which engages with the second cam groove, and holds a first lens (The followers engage with cam cylinder 21. See id.),
wherein the first barrel rotates as the moving unit moves in the optical axis direction (¶ 35), and
wherein the rotation of the first barrel moves the first holding frame in the optical axis direction (Rotation of the cam cylinder 21 moves the holding frame 11 in the direction of the optical axis. ¶ 28.).
Claim 6: Miyoshi discloses that the first barrel further has a third cam groove, and wherein the lens barrel includes a second lens holding frame that has a fourth protrusion, which engages with the third cam groove, and holds a second lens, and wherein the second lens holding frame moves in the optical axis direction by rotation of the first barrel (Second optical unit 12 holds lens group 12a and has followers 12b that engage the third cam groove. ¶ 29.).
Claim 7: Miyoshi discloses a second barrel provided further outward than or further inward than the first barrel (Cylinder 22 is a second barrel that is further outward than the first barrel. ¶ 27 and Fig. 1.).
Claim 8: Miyoshi discloses a third lens holding frame that holds a third lens, wherein the third lens holding frame moves along the optical axis direction integrally with the moving unit (Fourth optical unit 14 corresponds to the claimed third lens holding frame. ¶ 31.).
Claim 10: Miyoshi discloses an imaging device comprising the lens barrel according to any one of claims 1 (Fig. 1 and ¶ 26.).
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.
Claims 2-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyoshi in view of Takeda, JP 2001-264613.
Claim 2: Miyoshi does not disclose, but Takeda discloses: a moving unit that includes a third protrusion, and wherein the lens barrel includes a guide portion having a straight groove that engages with the third protrusion (Fig. 1 and ¶¶ 12-14).
It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Miyoshi with Takeda, the rationale being to provide improved dynamics when moving elements within the lens.
Claim 3: Miyoshi-Takeda discloses that the moving unit includes the third protrusion in plural (Takeda Fig. 1.).
Claim 4: Miyoshi-Takeda discloses that the third protrusion is rotatable about a center of the third protrusion (Takeda ¶ 17.).
Claim 5: Miyoshi fails to disclose, but Takeda would have suggested modifying Miyoshi to make the first protrusion rotatable about a center of the first protrusion (Takeda ¶ 17.). It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Miyoshi with Takeda, the rationale being to provide a smoother zoom operation.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyoshi
Claim 9: Miyoshi discloses that the drive unit includes a motor (¶ 34). Miyoshi does not disclose that the motor has an output shaft, and a lead screw, wherein the output shaft and the lead screw are connected by a coupling unit, and wherein the coupling unit has an alignment mechanism that adjusts a position of a shaft center of the output shaft and a position of a shaft center of the lead screw. Official notice is taken that this type of mechanism was well known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. For example, it was well known to use a motor and lead screw to effect OA-axis translation of lens units, and to use an alignment mechanism such as a bolt (see Spec. ¶ 41) to adjust the relative positions between a motor drive shaft and a lead screw. Therefore it would have been obvious to the POSITA to modify Miyoshi to include this, the rationale being to provide quiet and efficient lens movement, and to ensure proper alignment between the motor and the screw.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT J HANCE whose telephone number is (571)270-5319. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 11:00am-7:00pm ET.
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, Michael Fuelling can be reached at (571) 270-1367. 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.
/ROBERT J HANCE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3992
Prosecution Insights