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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 3-4 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
With regard to claim 3: Claim 3 recites the limitation "the lens barrel" in line 4 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, as claim 1 only indicates the presence of “a lens module” and not “a lens barrel”. For the purpose of examination with regard to the prior art, “lens barrel” is being considered to refer to the same structure as “a lens module”. Claim 4 depends upon claim 3 and inherits this indefiniteness.
With regard to claim 14: The claim is apparently missing a word at the beginning of the claim, stating “the comprises” which makes it unclear which element the claim limitation is directed towards limiting. For the purpose of examination with regard to the prior art the claim is being interpreted as though it were written to state “the magnet comprises”.
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.
Claim 6-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hirohata et al (US Patent 4,390,262).
With regard to claim 6: Hirohata discloses a camera (the camera is not drawn but the diaphragm structure which is drawn is explicitly disclosed as being used in a camera optical system in column 6 lines 37-39) which comprises an optical assembly having an optical axis (Figures 3a and 3b are noted in the description of the drawings as corresponding to sectional views perpendicular to and parallel to the axis of the lens, disclosing the presence of an optical axis), the optical assembly including a lens module (not drawn, but an objective lens is noted in the description of the drawings and column 7 lines 65-66 discloses the presence of front and rear lens assemblies) and a mechanical iris assembly, shown in Figures 1-4. The mechanical iris assembly comprises a housing 2, a set of blade elements (shutter blades 9 and 10, totaling 6 in number per in column 6 lines 34-37, note that per column 6 lines 48-55 the blades act as a diaphragm in addition to a shutter); a rotor plate 4; and an actuator assembly comprising at least one magnet 6 and a set of coils 5, each coil having an arcuate shape (see column 5 lines 60-68 and column 7 lines 28-32 describing the coils as having curved inner and outer portions with radially arranged connecting legs). In Hirohata the actuator assembly is configured to rotate the rotor plate relative to the housing in order to cause the set of blade elements to rotate relative to the housing, see column 6 lines 43-47 describing transmission or rotor motion to the blades and column 7 lines 33-44 describing movement of the rotor in response to passing current through the coils.
With regard to claims 7-11: As described in column 5 lines 60-68 and column 7 lines 28-32 and drawn in the figures, each coil has a shape that includes a curved inner side and a parallel curved outer side that both curve in a common direction such that each coil of the set of coils forms an annular segment. The set of coils are collectively arranged around the optical axis to subtend an angle of at least 180° (as drawn and as described in column 5 lines 48-59 the set of coils collectively subtend the entire circular extent of the rotor element 4).
Claims 6 and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kim et al (WO 2025/028935 A1, English machine translation attached)
Note regarding Kim: The examiner notes that Kim lists two priority documents, one which was filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and one which has a filing date matching the current application’s priority date of 07/31/2023. As noted in MPEP 2154.01(b), 35 USC 102(d) requires that a prior filed application to which priority claim is made must describe the subject matter used relied upon in a rejection, which means that only the portions of Kim which are described in the earlier priority document are available as prior art under 102(d). Analysis of the two priority documents of Kim (also attached) shows that the earlier filed priority application supports the disclosure of Kim regarding the structures shown in Figures 1-11 and 16A-17 (and associated discussion) and does not contain support for Figures 12A-15B and associated discussion of Kim, and correspondingly only the disclosure of Kim related to Figures 1-11 and 16A-17 (¶0041-0056, ¶0071-0301, and ¶0367-0390).
With regard to claims 6 and 12-13: Kim discloses a camera 200 which comprises an optical module having an optical axis (labeled OA in Figure 1) and comprising a lens module 10 and a mechanical iris assembly (aperture module 40). The mechanical iris assembly comprises a housing (carrier 50) a set of blade elements 150 (best seen in Figure 4a) a rotor plate (moving magnetic member 130, see ¶0112) and an actuator assembly which comprises at least one magnet and a set of coils 120 (the magnet being formed in the rotor and interacting with the coils to cause movement of the rotor, see ¶0124). The coils are disclosed as having an arcuate shape, see ¶0176, and the actuator assembly is configured to rotate the rotor plate relative to the housing to rotate the set of blade elements relative to the housing (see ¶0183). The magnet of Kim is formed as a magnet having an annular shape with a plurality of magnetic regions having a magnetization direction that is perpendicular to the optical axis (see ¶0128-0129).
Claims 15 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yoneyama et al (WO 2020/124553 A1).
With regard to claim 15: Yoneyama discloses a mechanical iris assembly 100 which comprises a housing (cover 10 and base 60); a set of blade elements 25; a motor 50d (see ¶0058-0059 and Figures 4A-4B which describes the details of the motor of this embodiment) which includes a rotor plate 51; a printed circuit 52 which defines at least one coil (see ¶0049 and 0058 discussing the formation of the coils 52b, 52c on or within a flexible printed circuit, FPC); and an actuator assembly (motor 50d) which comprises the coils and at least one magnet (magnet ring 51a, which incorporates six pairs of magnetic domains as described in ¶0058) and the coil (see ¶0059) wherein the actuator assembly is configured to rotate the rotor plate relative to the housing and the mechanical iris assembly is configured such that rotation of the rotor plate relative to the housing rotates the set of blade element relative to the housing (see ¶0056-0058).
With regard to claim 20: Yoneyama discloses a configuration of the mechanical iris assembly in Figure 10 which includes a set of ball bearing 165postioned to extend through one or more openings 152e in the printed circuit (see ¶0075-0076 noting that the difference between earlier stator configurations and the configuration of Figure 10 is limited to the provision of notches around the edge of the stator portion, indicating that the internal structure should be the same as that shown in earlier figures, and ¶0082-0083 disclosing positioning of the bearings).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1 and 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hong et al (US PGPub 2024/0377707 A1) in view of Hirohata and Hwang et al (US PGPub 2022/0128832 A1).
With regard to claim 1: Hong discloses a camera 70a which includes a optical assembly having an optical axis and comprising a lens module and a mechanical iris assembly (see ¶0206 disclosing presence of an imaging lens and an adjustable aperture module arranged along the optical axis of the camera imaging lens). The mechanical iris assembly comprises a set of blade elements 11; a rotor plate (movable component 13) and an actuator assembly which comprises a magnet 173 which is fixed relative to the rotor plate (see ¶0090), a first coil, and a second coil (see ¶0091, the two coils are disclosed as being separate coils despite not being individually labeled in the figures); and a controller (some form of control circuitry is present to interface with the aperture unit and realize the disclosed functionality of ¶0206-0210, particularly the adjustment of shooting parameters noted at the end of ¶0210). Rotation of the rotor causes the blade elements to move relative to the housing to adjust the aperture (see ¶0087
Hong is however silent as to the driving process of the actuator, and thus does not explicitly disclose that the circuitry of the controller causes current to concurrently to flow through both of the first coil and the second coil in opposite directions to cause the rotor plate to rotate relative to the housing. Hong does disclose that the actuator arrangement is such that three magnetic poles correspond to the pair of coils (see Figure 4), but does not detail how the coils are energized to cause the rotational force on the magnets (and cause rotor they are attached to move). Hong also does not expressly disclose the presence of a housing as part of the mechanical iris assembly.
A person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would be expected to have an understanding of electromotive forces within an electromagnetic actuator. The lack of detail given by Hong provides evidence of this expectation as it indicates that the reader is expected to be able to fill in the gaps to make the actuator function, see MPEP 2141.03 I, third paragraph citing Uber Techs., Inc. v. X One, Inc., 957 F.3d 1334, 1339, 2020 USPQ2d 10476 (Fed. Cir. 2020). Said person would be able to see that there are three distinct possible states of actuation of the coils of Hong: a. only one coil at a time is energized, b. both coils are energized in the same direction, or c. the coils are energized in opposite directions. Of these, only a. and c. impart any rotational force (in state b both coils would equally attract/repel each magnetic pole, resulting in no movement due to the symmetry of the magnetic domains above the coils).
Hirohata teaches arranging a driving coil for an electromagnetic actuator used to drive a rotor to move relative to a stator to actuate a multi-blade aperture assembly such that current imparted to the coils moves in opposite directions in adjacent coil elements (see Figure 3a). In Hirohata this is accomplished by having alternating winding directions for the coil wires, see Figure 4. Hirohata indicates that this arrangement allows for the coil to be made thinner in the axial direction so the shutter can be made thinner, see column 11 line 46 through column 12 line 2 and column 12 lines 32-34.
Additionally Hwang indicates that it is desirable to equip a mechanical iris assembly used as part of a camera module with a cover 820 which attaches to a base 810 (see ¶0133) to form an outer housing that protects the internal components of the aperture assembly (see ¶0132).
A person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to configure the control system in Hong to drive the coils in the manner discussed in Hirohata (with current in adjacent coils being driven in opposite directions) in order to cause the rotor to move in a rotational direction and allow for a thinner coil structure (since all coils contribute to the driving force imparted to the rotor). Said person would also have found it obvious to include a housing as part of a mechanical iris assembly in order to protect the internal components (as taught by Hwang).
With regard to claim 3: In the combination with Hwang the housing comprises a front housing element (a cover member similar to 820 of Hwang) and a rear housing element (the fixed base component 12 of Hong, which is of similar structure and function as base 810 of Hwang). An inner sidewall which defines an inner cavity is visible as being present in 12 of Hong due to the element having an inner cylindrical shape extending from the bottom of 12 to the region at the top where shaft structures 121 are located, see Figure 2.
Hong does not disclose that the lens barrel extends at least partially into the cavity, as Hong does not show in detail how the mechanical iris assembly is mated to the lens module.
Hwang teaches positioning a mechanical iris assembly such that the lens barrel to which it is mounted extends into a central region of the base element, as is best seen in Figure 5 (base element 810 receives part of 210 within a cavity defined by the inner sidewall of 810). This allows for the mechanical iris to be attached to the front of the lens assembly and move with the lens assembly, see ¶0092.
A person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to have configured the mechanical iris of the combination to be attached to the lens module of the camera of Hong in order to allow for the mechanical iris assembly to move with the lens barrel of the lens module when the lens is caused to move (e.g. during the focusing operations noted in ¶0208-0209 of Hong).
With regard to claim 4: In Hong the rotor plate circumferentially surrounds the sidewall of the fixed base element 12, as can be best appreciated by comparing Figure 1 (where the sidewall of the cylindrical inner portion of 12 is not visible due to the presence of 13) and Figure 2 (where the sidewall is visible because of the exploded arrangement of parts revealing it).
With regard to claim 5: The magnetization direction of Hong is shown as being parallel to the optical axis, see Figure 4.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hong, Hirohata, and Hwang in further view of Yoneyama.
With regard to claim 2: While there does appear to be some form of bearing elements visible in Figure 2 of Hong on the raised sections of 12 between the regions of the circuit board 15 where coils 171 are positioned, they are not discussed in detail so it is not possible to discern whether they are “ball bearings” as claimed. Further Hong does not disclose the presence of a preloading plate formed of ferritic material.
Yoneyama teaches the inclusion of ball bearings to support a moving member of an iris actuator, and further teaches that a ferritic material preload plate 163 may be used in conjunction with the magnetic elements of the movable member to apply a preloading force to those bearings to retain them (and the movable member) at a position where the ball bearings can support rotational movement of the movable member (see ¶0079 and ¶0082-0084).
A person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to include ball bearing members in the camera of Hong in order to reduce friction between the rotor plate and the fixed portions of the mechanical iris assembly, and further would have found it obvious to have included a preloading plate made out of a ferritic material which interacts with the magnets affixed to the rotor plate to generate a preloading force which retains the bearings and rotor plate in position relative to the fixed elements mechanical iris assembly (particularly relative to element 12).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 14 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 16-19 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:
With regard to claim 14: The prior art of record, alone or in combination, does not disclose nor indicate that a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found obvious the claimed combination of limitations in a camera. The prior art does not note the inclusion of both regions with magnetization directions perpendicular to the optical axis and second regions with magnetization directions parallel to the optical axis.
With regard to claims 16-19: The prior art does not teach a configuration in which a coil arranged on a printed circuit as required in claim 15 further is arranged such that the inner and outer traces are connected in parallel (emphasis added) by connecting traces. Coil structures in the prior art use do have connecting traces, but they are arranged serially.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Leon W Rhodes Jr whose telephone number is (571)270-5774. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00AM - 6:00PM.
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, Walter Lindsay can be reached at (571) 272-1674. 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.
/LEON W RHODES, JR/Examiner, Art Unit 2852