DETAILED ACTION
The instant action is in response to application 26 February 2024.
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 .
Specification
The title is not specific. Examiner suggests Power Supply with Variable Resistive Divider for Lens Heating.
The 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.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Korea on 25 August 2021.
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a power supply unit configured to supply power to the heating element” and “a current sensing unit connected between the power supply unit and the heating element and configured to measure a current flowing to the heating element;” in claim 10.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends 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 remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
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 5, 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph.
As to claim 5, applicant has the terminology “current resistance”. This is problematic, because it is unclear which engineering unit it refers to. It could refer to ohms (IE, present resistance) or it could be some function of current and resistance such as voltage (V=IR). Given that applicants invention also relates to lenses it could even correlate to absorption or scattering, though examiner find it unlikely. In addition to this, the independent claim states the resistor is varied by the current measurement, which also appears to be in a number of applicants figures. In short, it is unclear how what applicant means in this claim, and how it is being achieved in the specification, especially when it is not readily apparent where the output boltage or feedback voltage is being read by the control unit, which appears to be suggested by ¶42.
As to claim 15, there is a similar problem to claim 5 above.
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 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.
For method claims, note that under MPEP 2112.02, the principles of inherency, if a prior art device, in its normal and usual operation, would necessarily perform the method claimed, then the method claimed will be considered to be anticipated by the prior art device. When the prior art device is the same as a device described in the specification for carrying out the claimed method, it can be assumed the device will inherently perform the claimed process. In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 231 USPQ 136 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Therefore the previous rejections based on the apparatus will not be repeated. (The claims have been condensed.)
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.
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 of this title, 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 1-4, 6, 8, 9, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shiau (US 20170187301) in view of Lee (US 20200271889).
As to claim 1, Shiau discloses a power supply device for supplying power to
Though he specifically mentions heat loss control and teaches much of the claimed invention, he does not specify a particular load..
Lee teaches a heating element (Claim 1 “a heating wire, which is positioned on the surface of the lens or of the heating layer, which generates heat when a current is supplied thereto from an external power supply, and which is electrically connected to the heating layer, wherein the lens is provided in plural, a lens barrel accommodates some of the plurality of lenses, the heating layer and the heating wire are disposed on a surface of an outermost lens”).
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 device above to use a lens heater as disclosed in Lee to prevent damage (Lee ¶55).
As to claim 2, Shiau in view of Lee teaches wherein a voltage of the power supplied from the power supply unit is determined by a voltage distribution of a preset reference voltage according to the feedback resistor and a first resistor (Fig. 2B, Vref, 141, 142).
PNG
media_image1.png
598
742
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As to claim 3, Shiau in view of Lee teaches wherein the power supply unit comprises: a power output unit configured to output power; and a feedback input unit configured to receive feedback, wherein the feedback resistor is connected to the feedback input unit, and the first resistor is connected between the power output unit and the feedback input unit of power supply unit (Fig. 2B, Vref, 141, 142).
As to claim 4, Shiau in view of Lee teaches wherein the feedback resistor comprises: a variable resistor unit whose resistance varies according to a control signal from the control unit; and a fixed resistor unit comprising a resistor of a preset size (see Fig. 2B).
As to claim 6, Shaiu in view of Lee do not explicitly teach inhibit overvoltage or under-voltage of the power output from the power supply unit. However, disabling things when they are in an overvoltage or undervoltage condition is old and well known and therefore not patentable. See MPEP §2144.03 and US 6,324,039 Col. 4, lines 12-19, US 5130561 Fig. 2 items 93/95; and US 20060164470 ¶30. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to disable the load outside of operating boundaries.
As to claim 8, Shiau in view of Lee teaches wherein the current sensing unit comprises a current sensing resistor (Fig. 2B, item 12).
As to claim 9, Shaiu in view of Lee teaches comprising an amplifying unit configured to amplify a voltage between both ends of the current sensing resistor and apply it to the control unit (Fig. 2B, item 13 ¶33 “The current monitor 13 is coupled to the current sensor 12 to provide a sensing value Vs according to the output current Io, and to amplify the sensing value Vs to provide a first feedback value Vk.”).
As to claim 10, Shaiu discloses A
Though he specifically mentions heat loss control and teaches much of the claimed invention, he does not specify a particular load.
Lee teaches a heating element (Claim 1).
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 device above to use a lens heater as disclosed in Lee to prevent damage (Lee ¶55).
As to claim 11, Shiau in view of Lee teaches a feedback resistor, the resistance of which is varied according to a control signal of the control unit, wherein the power supplied by the power supply unit varies according to the feedback resistance (see Fig. 2B).
As to claim 12, Shiau in view of Lee teaches wherein a voltage of the power supplied from the power supply unit is determined by a voltage distribution of a preset reference voltage according to the feedback resistor and a first resistor (Fig 2B).
As to claim 13, Shiau in view of Lee teaches wherein the power supply unit comprises: a power output unit configured to output power; and a feedback input unit configured to receive feedback, wherein the feedback resistor is connected to the feedback input unit, and the first resistor is connected between the power output unit and the feedback input unit of power supply unit (Fig. 2b).
As to claim 14, Shiau in view of Lee teaches wherein the feedback resistor comprises: a variable resistor unit whose resistance varies according to a control signal from the control unit; and a fixed resistor unit comprising a resistor of a preset size (see Fig. 2B).
As to claim 16, 18, 19 these claims are similar claims 6, 8 9 and are obvious per MPEP 2112.02.
As to claim 20, A lens module, comprising:
Though he specifically mentions heat loss control and teaches much of the claimed invention, he does not specify a particular load.
Lee teaches a heating element and a lens (Claim 1).
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 device above to use a lens heater as disclosed in Lee to prevent damage (Lee ¶55).
Claims 5 and 15 (as best understood) is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shiau (US 20170187301) in view of Lee (US 20200271889) and Marubashi (US 20210274850).
Shiau in view of Lee teaches and varies the feedback resistance according to the current resistance value of the heating element (V=IR, the resistance of the load is taken into account by the sensor).
They do not teach wherein the control unit calculates a current resistance value of the heating element from the current measured by the current sensing unit,
Marubashi teaches wherein the control unit calculates a current resistance value of the heating element from the current measured by the current sensing unit (¶46).
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 device above to use resistance calculations as disclosed in Marubashi to ensure the load is not functioning as an open circuit.
Claim 15 is similar to claim 5 above and is obvious for similar reasons per MPEP 2112.02.
Claims 7, 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shiau (US 20170187301) in view of Lee (US 20200271889) and Mattes (US 5795069).
As to claim 7, Shiau in view of Lee does not explicitly disclose wherein the control unit varies the feedback resistance of the power supply unit according to a temperature received from a temperature sensor measuring an external temperature.
Mattes teaches wherein the control unit varies the feedback resistance of the power supply unit according to a temperature received from a temperature sensor measuring an external temperature (abstract).
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 device above to use temperature compensation as disclosed in Mattes to prevent overheating.
Claim 17 is similar to claim 7 above and is rejected for similar reasons per MPEP 2112.02.
Conclusion
Examiner has cited particular column, paragraph, and line numbers in the references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner. In the case of amending the claimed invention, Applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for proper interpretation and also to verify and ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PETER M NOVAK whose telephone number is (571)270-1375. The examiner can normally be reached on 9AM-5PM,Monday through Thursday, 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, Crystal Hammond can be reached on 571-270-1682. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/PETER M NOVAK/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2839
Prosecution Insights