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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Species III, claims 16-20 in the reply filed on 12/18/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the Examiner has not pointed out any mutually exclusive features between Fig 3, Figs 4A-4F, and Fig 5A-5F. This is not found persuasive because under U.S. restriction practice, the species are independent and distinct as detailed in the previous requirement, with burden being that they require different fields of search and art applicable to one species is not applicable to another, as previously detailed. The restriction is proper as an Election of Species, because the embodiments are not the same for example in Group I, Par [0098]-[0111], as detailed within the Specification, details a imaging system that a controllable aperture having two or more switchable regions and detailed to be a variation within Par 126. For this reason, the applicant is required to elect the embodiment that wants to prosecute for this invention. See specification paragraphs, [0098]-[0111], [0120]-[0128], and [0130]-[0160]. This is not found persuasive because there is an examination and search burden for these patentably distinct species due to their mutually exclusive characteristics. Moreover, Applicant has not pointed out any error in the requirement and has not stated on the record or submitted evidence that the species are not patentably distinct. Accordingly, it is still seen that the search and the examination of all of the species would indeed place an undue burden on the examiner. As previously explained the species are independent or distinct because two different combinations, not disclosed as capable of use together, having different modes of operation, different functions and different effects are independent. Where there is no disclosure of a relationship between species (see MPEP§806.04(b)), they are independent inventions. Finally, with regard to applicants allegation that joinder of these distinct inventions would not present a serious burden to the U. S. Patent and Trademark Office, such allegations relied on the unsupported assumption that the search and the examination of both the inventions would be coextensive. Further, while there may be some overlap in the searches of the two inventions, there is no reason to believe that the searches would be identical. Therefore, based on the additional work involved in searching and examining both distinct inventions together, restriction of the distinct inventions is clearly proper.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Information Disclosure Statement
As required by M.P.E.P. 609, the applicant’s submissions of the Information Disclosure Statement dated 9/08/22, 9/08/2022 and 12/18/2025 is acknowledged by the examiner and the cited references have been considered in the examination of the claims now pending.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu (9759984) in view Xu (20200357880) herein referred to as Xu ‘880.
Regarding claim 16, Xu discloses an electronic device (Col 4, line 45, portable electronic device) comprising: a housing (Col 4, lines 64-66, housing of the device); a camera module (electronic camera module 300) extending at least partially through the housing (Fig 5A-5C, Col 4, lines, 64-66, optical interfaces are positioned substantially parallel to a front or rear face of the external housing of the device); and an electrochromic aperture (electro-optic variable aperture 302) disposed over (Fig 4, Col 4, line 52-54) an imaging sensor (imaging sensor 306) of the camera module (300), the electrochromic aperture (302) comprising: a lower outer ring electrode disposed to a first diameter (Fig 5A, second aperture stack 504); an inner ring electrode disposed within (Fig 5A, first aperture stack 502), and circumscribed (Fig 5A) by, the upper outer ring electrode (Fig 5A, counter electrode layer 524), the inner ring electrode (502) conductively coupled (Fig 5A, Col 6, lines 38-41) to the lower outer ring electrode (504) and coplanar (Fig 5A shows 502 is coplanar and stacked with 504 and 524) with the upper outer ring electrode (524); an electrochromic stack disposed over the upper outer ring electrode and the inner ring electrode (Fig 4A, Fig 5A, Col 6, lines 26-28); and a common electrode disposed over the electrochromic stack (Fig 4A, Col 6, line 63 – Col 7, line 1) but does not teach a dielectric ring disposed over the lower outer ring electrode; an upper outer ring electrode disposed over the dielectric ring and conductively decoupled from the lower outer ring electrode. However, within a similar endeavor, Xu ‘880 teaches a dielectric ring (Fig 19, [0051], dielectric ring 148B) disposed over (Fig 19, [0051]) the lower outer ring electrode (Fig 19, [0051], ring electrode 156); an upper outer ring electrode (Fig 19, [0051], second ring electrode 178) disposed over the dielectric ring (148B) and conductively decoupled from the lower outer ring electrode (Fig 19, [0051], dielectric ring 148C may be located horizontally between first and second ring electrodes 156, 178). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the optical device of Xu with the components of Xu ’880 for the purpose of optimizing the available space within a device structure (Xu ’880).
Regarding claim 17, Xu in view Xu ‘880 discloses the invention as described within claim 16 and Xu further teaches wherein, in response to a signal from the electronic device (Col 7, line 41-44), the electrochromic aperture is configured to apply a first voltage to the lower outer ring electrode to drive the inner ring electrode to a second voltage that colors (Col 7, line 41-44, opaque has been interpreted as a color other than blank or clear) or bleaches a portion of the electrochromic stack above the inner ring electrode.
Regarding claim 18, Xu in view Xu ‘880 discloses the invention as described within claim 16 and Xu further teaches wherein, in response to a signal from the electronic device (Col 7, line 41-44), the electrochromic aperture is configured to drive the upper outer ring electrode to a voltage that, in turn, colors (Col 7, line 41-44, opaque has been interpreted as a color other than blank or clear) or bleaches a portion of the electrochromic stack above the upper outer ring electrode.
Regarding claim 19, Xu in view Xu ‘880 discloses the invention as described within claim 16 and Xu further teaches wherein the common electrode extends (Fig 4A, Col 6, line 63 – Col 7, line 1) across a diameter of the upper outer ring electrode (Fig 5A).
Regarding claim 20, Xu in view Xu ‘880 discloses the invention as described within claim 16 and Xu further teaches wherein the lower outer ring electrode (Fig 5A, second aperture stack 504) is aligned with a central axis of the imaging sensor (Fig 5A, Col 6, lines 14-17).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Luten (10429711), Gleason (20160142606), and Palazzotto (20130186177) are examples of imaging system with an electro-optic aperture.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Sharrief I Broome whose telephone number is (571)272-3454. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-5pm, EST.
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.
Sharrief I. Broome
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2872
/SHARRIEF I BROOME/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872