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 .
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 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 04/27/2026 with respect to amended claims 1 – 2, 4 – 8, and 10 – 11 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Applicant has amended the title of the invention to overcome the objection to the specification provided in the previous office 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:
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 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.
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 1 – 2, 4 – 8, and 10 – 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaifu (US PgPub No. 2013/0135543) in view of Chen (US PgPub No. 2023/0350259).
Regarding claim 1, Kaifu teaches a dimming apparatus (figure 1) comprising: a dimming element that adjusts an amount of light reaching an imaging element from a subject at a time of imaging (figures 1 – 2 item 31) according to an applied voltage (figures 3A – 5B); a driver that applies a drive voltage to be inverted to the dimming element (figure 1 item 34 and figure 4 drive voltage V1 going from high value towards 0); and a controller that controls the driver, wherein the controller controls the driver to change a drive frequency of the drive voltage according to a preset length of an exposure time of the imaging element (figure 1 item 33 controlling item 34 and figure 4 change the transmittance over time of exposure; also paragraphs 0056 and 0065).
However, Kaifu fails to clearly teach the drive voltage whose positive and negative are inverted regularly or irregularly. Chen, on the other hand teaches the drive voltage whose positive and negative are inverted regularly or irregularly.
More specifically, Chen teaches the drive voltage whose positive and negative are inverted regularly or irregularly (paragraphs 0037 – 0039, 0057 – 0060, and 0064; drive voltage whose positive and negative).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to incorporate the teachings of Chen with the teachings of Kaifu to have a system for easily control the opaque nature of the glass i.e. opaque/nearly opaque or transparent/nearly transparent by applying drive voltage whose positive and negative are inverted regularly or irregularly as discussed in at least paragraphs 0036 - 0039 of Chen, thereby improving the system operation of TSUNASHIMA.
Regarding claim 2, as mentioned above in the discussion of claim 1, Kaifu in view of Chen teach all of the limitations of the parent claim. Additionally, Kaifu teaches wherein the controller increases the drive frequency as the exposure time is longer (figure 1 item 33 controlling item 34 and figure 4 change the transmittance over time of exposure as needed; also paragraphs 0056 and 0065).
Regarding claim 4, as mentioned above in the discussion of claim 1, Kaifu in view of Chen teach all of the limitations of the parent claim. Additionally, Kaifu teaches wherein the controller synchronizes the drive voltage with a drive signal of the imaging element (figure 1 item 22 sends signal to item 33, item 33 sends signal to item 34 for driving item 31).
Regarding claim 5, as mentioned above in the discussion of claim 4, Kaifu in view of Chen teach all of the limitations of the parent claim. Additionally, Kaifu teaches wherein the controller changes the drive voltage before or after a predetermined time of a change in the drive signal of the imaging element (figure 4 also figure 1 item 22 sends signal to item 33, item 33 sends signal to item 34 for driving item 31; figure 1 item 33 controlling item 34 and figure 4 change the transmittance over time of exposure; also paragraphs 0056 and 0065).
Regarding claim 6, as mentioned above in the discussion of claim 4, Kaifu in view of Chen teach all of the limitations of the parent claim. Additionally, Kaifu teaches a light shielding element that shields light reaching the imaging element from the subject at the time of imaging, wherein the controller synchronizes the drive voltage with a timing of light shielding by the light shielding element (figures 2, 5A – 5B, 7, 9, and 13 - 16; item M).
Regarding claim 7, as mentioned above in the discussion of claim 1, Kaifu in view of Chen teach all of the limitations of the parent claim. Additionally, Kaifu teaches a light shielding element that shields light reaching the imaging element from the subject at the time of imaging, wherein the controller controls a timing of shielding of the light by the light shielding element, and changes the drive voltage while the light shielding element shields the light (figures 2, 5A – 5B, 7, 9, and 13 - 16; item M; figure 1 item 22 sends signal to item 33, item 33 sends signal to item 34 for driving item 31).
Regarding claim 8, as mentioned above in the discussion of claim 4, Kaifu in view of Chen teach all of the limitations of the parent claim. Additionally, Kaifu teaches wherein the controller sets an output time interval of a drive signal of the imaging element to be longer than a sum of a read time and the exposure time of the imaging element (paragraphs 0040, 0059, and 0070; the image quality improvement processing section 43 performs the predetermined image quality improving process on the picked-up image signal S1 to generate the picked-up image signal Sout subjected to the image quality improving process).
Regarding claim 10, as mentioned above in the discussion of claim 1, Kaifu in view of Chen teach all of the limitations of the parent claim. Additionally, Kaifu teaches wherein the dimming element includes a liquid crystal element that adjusts an amount of transmitted light according to an applied voltage (abstract and figures 1 – 2 item 31; liquid crystal dimming device).
Regarding claim 11, as mentioned above in the discussion of claim 1, Kaifu in view of Chen teach all of the limitations of the parent claim. Additionally, Kaifu teaches an imaging apparatus (figure 1 image pickup unit 1) comprising: the dimming apparatus according to claim 1 (please look at claim 1 above); and an imaging element that captures an image of a subject to generate image data (figure 1 item 22; capture image).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3 and 9 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:
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter for claim 3: “wherein the controller sets a drive frequency of the drive voltage to be higher than a predetermined frequency when the exposure time is equal to or longer than a predetermined time, and sets the drive frequency to the predetermined frequency or less when the exposure time is shorter than the predetermined time” in combination with the other limitations in the claim and the parent claim is not discussed or suggested in any of the prior art that was searched.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter for claim 9: “wherein the controller determines an exposure time for a moving image and an exposure time for a still image, changes a drive frequency of the drive voltage according to a length of the exposure time for a moving image at a time of shooting a moving image, sets the drive frequency of the drive voltage to be higher than a predetermined frequency when the exposure time for a still image is equal to or longer than a predetermined time at a time of shooting a still image, and does not invert the drive voltage when the exposure time for a still image is shorter than the predetermined time” in combination with the other limitations in the claim and the parent claim is not discussed or suggested in any of the prior art that was searched.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Yanagida (US PgPub No. 7,486,349) teaches a camera system with dimming element.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office Action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Usman A Khan whose telephone number is (571)270-1131. The examiner can normally be reached on M - Th 5:30 AM - 2 PM, F 5:30 AM - Noon.
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, Sinh Tran can be reached on (571)272-7564. 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.
Usman Khan
/USMAN A KHAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2637
07/01/2026
Prosecution Insights