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 .
Foreign Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 07/15/2025 and 05/23/2024 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
3.) Claim Interpretation
i.)
With regard to claims 1-15, it is taken that an “IC chip” is referring to a well-known “integrated circuit (IC) chip”.
ii.)
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.
Use of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is invoked is rebutted when the function is recited with sufficient structure, material, or acts within the claim itself to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is not invoked is rebutted when the claim element recites function but fails to recite sufficiently definite structure, material or acts to perform that function.
Claim elements in this application that use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Similarly, claim elements that do not use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed not to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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 driving mechanism”, “a generation unit”, “a storage unit”, “a calibration unit”, in claims 1-15.
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 limitations “a driving mechanism”, “a generation unit”, “a storage unit”, “a calibration unit”, has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use a generic placeholder “a driving mechanism”, “a generation unit”, “a storage unit”, “a calibration unit”, coupled with functional language “that drives an optical element”, “that generates the control signal”, “for storing”, “that generates or updates the relationship information”, without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Since the claim limitation(s) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, claim(s) 1-15 has/have been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation:
Support for the structure that performs the functions of “a driving mechanism” is shown as being implemented by a voice coil motor and a motor driver. The driving mechanism is not limited to the electromagnetic actuator, but may be a shape memory alloy (SMA) actuator, piezo (piezoelectric) actuator, or the like (Paragraph 0029 and Figure 1 of the publication to the instant application). The storage unit appears to be implemented by a memory (Paragraph 0041 of the publication to the instant application). The “generation unit” and “calibration unit” are shown as being implemented by a processor and a memory that stores a program which is used by the processor to execute the claimed functions along with the algorithm shown in Figures 6 and 8A-8C and their corresponding descriptions in the specification (Paragraphs 0166-0168, 0174; Figures 6, 8A-8C of the publication to the instant application).
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner’s interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
If applicant does not intend to have the claim limitation(s) treated under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112 , sixth paragraph, applicant may amend the claim(s) so that it/they will clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, or present a sufficient showing that the claim recites/recite sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
For more information, see MPEP § 2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
4.) Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a1) (a2) as being anticipated by Shirai (US Pub No.: 2017/0343768A1).
Regarding Claim 17, Shirai discloses a generation method that generates relationship information indicating a relationship between a correction coefficient of a control signal corresponding to a magnitude of a sound generated due to the driving by a driving mechanism and a position of an optical element (Drivable range of a focus lens, Paragraphs 0047-0051, 0086; Abstract), the relationship information being referred by a control apparatus that generates the control signal for controlling the driving mechanism for moving the optical element to a target position while suppressing the sound generated due to the driving by the driving mechanism that drives the optical element (The camera control unit 21 may control the focus lens 33 to be driven at a high speed in the search control in the still image imaging mode and may control the focus lens 33 to be driven at a low speed in the search control in the moving-picture imaging mode, Paragraphs 0088-0089. The lens control unit 36 compares the noise-reduction lower limit lens moving speed V0b acquired in step S401 with the driving instruction speed of the focus lens 33 acquired in step S402. More specifically, the lens control unit 36 determines whether or not the driving instruction speed (unit: pulses/second) of the focus lens 33 is smaller than the noise-reduction lower limit lens moving speed V0b (unit: pulses/second), Paragraphs 0088-0089; 0167-0185; Figure 21), wherein the method comprises:
generating the relationship information based on sound information indicating a magnitude of a sound which corresponds to the position of the optical element and is generated due to the driving by the driving mechanism according to a predetermined driving condition and correction coefficient information indicating a relationship between the magnitude of the sound (noise limits) and the correction coefficient (limiting of the lens driving speed) (The lens control unit 36 compares the noise-reduction lower limit lens moving speed V0b acquired in step S401 with the driving instruction speed of the focus lens 33 acquired in step S402. More specifically, the lens control unit 36 determines whether or not the driving instruction speed (unit: pulses/second) of the focus lens 33 is smaller than the noise-reduction lower limit lens moving speed V0b (unit: pulses/second).
In a case where the driving instruction speed of the lens 33 is smaller than the noise-reduction lower limit lens moving speed, the process proceeds to step S404. On the other hand, in a case where the driving instruction speed of the focus lens 33 is equal to or higher than the noise-reduction lower limit lens moving speed V0b, the process proceeds to step S405. In step S404, it is determined that the driving instruction speed of the focus lens 33 transmitted from the camera body 2 is smaller than the noise-reduction lower limit lens moving speed V0b. In this case, in order to suppress the driving sound of the focus lens 33, the lens control unit 36 drives the focus lens 33 at the noise-reduction lower limit lens moving speed V0b. In this manner, in a case where the driving instruction speed of the focus lens 33 is smaller than the noise-reduction lower limit lens moving speed V0b, the lens control unit 36 limits the lens driving speed V1a of the focus lens 33 to the noise-reduction lower limit lens moving speed V0b, Paragraphs 0167-0185; Figures 19 and 21).
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.
5.) Claim(s) 1-2, 7 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shirai (US Pub No.: 2017/0343768A1) and further in view of Shigeta (US Pub No.: 2021/0274087A1).
With regard to Claim 1, Shirai discloses a control of a driving mechanism that drives an optical element based on a control signal (Drivable range of a focus lens, Paragraphs 0047-0051, 0086; Abstract), comprising:
a generation unit that generates the control signal for moving the optical element to a target position while suppressing a sound (reduction of noise) generated due to a driving by the driving mechanism (driving mechanism of the focus lens), based on a detection signal indicating a position of the optical element (focus lens) and relationship information indicating a relationship between an index corresponding to a magnitude of the sound generated (noise limits) due to the driving by the driving mechanism and a position of the optical element (The camera control unit 21 may control the focus lens 33 to be driven at a high speed in the search control in the still image imaging mode and may control the focus lens 33 to be driven at a low speed in the search control in the moving-picture imaging mode, Paragraphs 0088-0089. The lens control unit 36 compares the noise-reduction lower limit lens moving speed V0b acquired in step S401 with the driving instruction speed of the focus lens 33 acquired in step S402. More specifically, the lens control unit 36 determines whether or not the driving instruction speed (unit: pulses/second) of the focus lens 33 is smaller than the noise-reduction lower limit lens moving speed V0b (unit: pulses/second).
In a case where the driving instruction speed of the lens 33 is smaller than the noise-reduction lower limit lens moving speed, the process proceeds to step S404. On the other hand, in a case where the driving instruction speed of the focus lens 33 is equal to or higher than the noise-reduction lower limit lens moving speed V0b, the process proceeds to step S405. In step S404, it is determined that the driving instruction speed of the focus lens 33 transmitted from the camera body 2 is smaller than the noise-reduction lower limit lens moving speed V0b. In this case, in order to suppress the driving sound of the focus lens 33, the lens control unit 36 drives the focus lens 33 at the noise-reduction lower limit lens moving speed V0b. In this manner, in a case where the driving instruction speed of the focus lens 33 is smaller than the noise-reduction lower limit lens moving speed V0b, the lens control unit 36 limits the lens driving speed V1a of the focus lens 33 to the noise-reduction lower limit lens moving speed V0b, Paragraphs 0167-0185; Figure 21).
Shirai does not explicitly disclose that an IC chip controls the driving mechanism. Shigeta teaches of an IC chip that controls a driving mechanism, (Shigeta teaches of a lens apparatus includes an optical member, a driving device configured to perform driving of the optical member, a detector configured to detect a state related to the driving, and a processor configured to generate a control signal for the driving device based on first information about the detected state, wherein the processor includes a machine learning model configured to generate an output related to the control signal based on the first information and second information about the lens apparatus, and is configured to output the first information and the second information to a generator configured to perform generation of the machine learning model, Abstract of Shigeta. Shigeta teaches that the lens apparatus is controlled by an application specific integrated circuit with driving devices 105, 107, 109, and 112 that are not limited to ultrasonic motors, and may be configured to include other motors such as a voice coil motor, a direct-current (DC) motor, and a stepping motor., Paragraphs 0026-0027, 0105-0106 of Shigeta. It would have been obvious and well-known to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to enable the teachings of Shirai to include an IC chip that controlled the driving mechanism as taught by Shigeta, because the IC chip can perform customizable tasks at a maximum efficiency while lowering power consumption).
Regarding Claim 2, Shirai and Shigeta disclose the IC chip according to claim 1, wherein the generation unit generates, in order to suppress the sound generated due to the driving by the driving mechanism by suppressing moving speed or moving acceleration of the optical element (limits the driving speed of the focus lens 33), the control signal corresponding to the position of the optical element based on the relationship information (In a case where the clipping operation is permitted by the camera control unit 21, the lens control unit 36 limits the driving speed of the focus lens 33 to the noise-reduction lower limit lens moving speed V0b so that the driving speed V1a of the focus lens 33 described later is not lower than the noise-reduction lower limit lens moving speed V0b. In a case where the driving instruction speed of the focus lens 33 is smaller than the noise-reduction lower limit lens moving speed V0b, the lens control unit 36 limits the lens driving speed V1a of the focus lens 33 to the noise-reduction lower limit lens moving speed V0b. By performing the clipping operation, the lens control unit 36 limits the driving speed V1a of the focus lens 33 to the noise-reduction lower limit lens moving speed V0b (controls the driving speed as not to be lower than the noise-reduction lower limit lens moving speed V0b) (step S404), so that it is possible to suppress the driving sound of the focus lens 33, Paragraphs 0168-0178 of Shirai).
In regard to Claim 7, Shirai and Shigeta disclose the IC chip according to claim 1, further comprising a storage unit for storing the relationship information (The noise-reduction lower limit lens moving speed V0b is acquired by the lens control unit 36. The noise-reduction lower limit lens moving speed V0b is stored in the lens memory 37, and the lens control unit 36 can acquire the noise-reduction lower limit lens moving speed V0b from the lens memory 37, Paragraphs 0170, 0194 of Shirai).
Method Claim 16 corresponds to apparatus/device claim 1 and is rejected as discussed in the above rejection to claim 1.
6.) Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-6, 8-15 and 18-20 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 PRITHAM DAVID PRABHAKHER whose telephone number is (571)270-1128. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 8:00 am to 5:00 pm 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, Lin Ye can be reached at 5712727372. 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.
Pritham David Prabhakher
Patent Examiner
Pritham.Prabhakher@uspto.gov
/PRITHAM D PRABHAKHER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2638
Prosecution Insights