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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed on 04/26/2025 fails to comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97(a) because it lacks the appropriate size fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(v). It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered as to the merits.
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 drive unit configured to --, 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.
A review of the specification shows, the claimed drive unit to be the structure 23 as depicted in fig. 3 and described in the text of paragraph {0069] of the PGPUB. And the program being the program contained in the third control unit 24 as depicted in fig. 3
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.
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 no statutory 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.
Claims[1 and 5] is rejected on the ground of no statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims [1+ 14 and 10] of U.S. Patent No. [12,309,490]. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims[1 and 5] of the current application are an obvious variant and encompassed by claims [1+ 14 and 10] of U.S. Patent No. [12,309,490].
Examiner note: in the above claim [ a + b] signifies combined claim limitation.
Below is the table showing the conflicting claims (the conflicting limitations in the corresponding claim are highlighted by same color).
US.19/0602
US. PAT. No. 12,309,490
1. A manually operated ring drive device comprising; a manually operated ring drive device configured to rotationally drive a manually operated ring that moves a movable lens included in a lens barrel mounted to a camera body back and forth in an optical axis direction, comprising:
a drive gear that is provided at a position that makes direct or indirect contact with the manually operated ring configured to change an optical characteristics of the movable lens included in the lens barrel, and configured to rotate while in contact with the manually operated ring to rotate the manually operated ring; a drive unit configured to rotationally drive the drive gear; and a base part that has a surface to which the camera body is connected, and a part on which the drive unit is disposed.
1. A camera system, comprising: a camera body; a lens barrel that is mounted on the camera body and includes at least one movable lens; and a manually operated ring drive device mounted on the camera body,
wherein the camera body has an input unit configured to input at least one optical characteristic value for the lens barrel, and a first control unit configured to control the input unit,
the lens barrel has a manually operated ring configured to move the movable lens in an optical axis direction in order to vary an optical characteristics, a lens position sensor configured to sense a position of the movable lens,
a storage unit configured to store information about a characteristics of the movable lens, and a second control unit configured to control the lens position sensor and the storage unit, the manually operated ring drive device has a transmission part configured to transmit rotation to the manually operated ring, a drive unit configured to rotationally drive the transmission part, and a third control unit configured to control the drive unit, the camera body and the lens barrel each have a first mechanical connection portion configured to allow the two to be mechanically connected to each other and a first electrical connection portion configured to allow the two to be electrically connected to each other, the camera body and the manually operated ring drive device each have a second mechanical connection portion configured to allow the two to be mechanically connected to each other and a second electrical connection portion configured to allow the two to be electrically connected to each other, and the first control unit controls the second control unit and the third control unit such that the drive unit moves the movable lens on the basis of the optical characteristic value inputted to the input unit and information about the characteristics of the movable lens.
14. The camera system according to claim 1, wherein the manually operated ring drive device further comprises a base part on which the camera body is placed.
5. The manually operated ring drive device according to claim 1, further comprising a power supply unit that is provided to the base part and is configured to supply power to the camera body.
10. The camera system according to claim 8, wherein the power receiving unit receives electric power from the camera body via a wired connection part of the camera body.
Claim [6] is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims [1 + 14 ] of U.S. Patent No. [12,309,490] in view of Kamimura (US. 2013/0021514).
Reclaim [6] claims [1 +14] of U.S. Patent No. [12,309,490] discloses everything except
a release button that is provided to the base part and is configured to operate a shutter provided to the camera body.
Nonetheless in the same field of endeavor Kamimura discloses an electronic device as claims [1+14] of U.S. Patent No. [12,309,490], (see Kamimura fig. 1). Kamimura further discloses a release button
Hence it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill art to have been motivated to modify claims [1+14] of U.S. Patent No. [12,309,490] before the effective filling date of the claimed invention by the teaching of Kamimura for example by incorporating the release button of Kamimura in the device of claims [1+14] of U.S. Patent No. [12,309,490], since this would allow to easily adjust focus and capture images by manipulating the release button (see ¶0028 )
Claim [1 +14] of U.S. Patent No. [12,309,490] as modified by Kamimura (combination) don’t seem to explicitly disclose the release button (taught in Kamimura, 16 fig.1), being provided to the base part. However it is obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have been motivated to modify the combination for example, by installing the release button of the combination in a desired location including the base part of the combination, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikes, 86 USPQ 70.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims [2-4] 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
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AHMED A BERHAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5094. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00Am-5:00pm (MAX- Flex).
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, Twyler Haskins can be reached at 571-272-7406. 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.
/AHMED A BERHAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2639
Prosecution Insights