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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 04/202/2026 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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:
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.
Claim(s) 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gat (US 8164813 B1, of record) in view of Martin (US 10942420 B2, of record).
Re Claim 1, Gat discloses, on Fig.1-4 and Fig. 6, an iris diaphragm having an optical axis, comprising: a fixed ring (Fig. 1: pivot plate 3), a plurality of m∈N>1 blades (blades 17 and 19) defining a diaphragm aperture of predetermined shape (see Fig. 6), the blades being able to move in a plane perpendicular to the optical axis with respect to the fixed ring (blades 17 and 19 are perpendicular to optical axis of Fig. 1-2), each blade comprising a control pin (pins 25 and 27), a control ring (actuator plate 29) designed to rotate about the optical axis with respect to the fixed ring [Col 5: Lines 35-55] and comprising m control guideways (slots 33 and 35) [Col 6, Liens 30-40), each control pin being able to move along a respective one of the control guideways by bearing along the respective control guideway(“Those pins are aligned with respective ones of the longer curved slots 33 and 35 in actuator plate 29”) [Col 5, Lines 35-55], a rotation of the control ring about the optical axis giving rise, via the movement of the control pins (PC) in the control guideways, to the movement, in the plane perpendicular to the optical axis, of the blades with respect to the fixed ring so as to modify the area of the aperture while maintaining the predetermined aperture shape (See Fig. 6a-6b where blades 17 and 19 modify the area of the aperture, while maintaining the rhombus like shape of the aperture), without causing a rotation of the predetermined shape with respect to the fixed ring (Fig. 6B: the aperture shape has not rotated), the fixed ring further comprising a plurality of n∈N≥m guidance guideways (slots 7 and 9), each blade comprising two respective mobile pins (depending pins 22b and 21b) each able to move in one of the respective guidance guideways ( “…the depending pins serve the same function as the depending lips in the prior embodiment.”… “Those edges respectively fit into the straight slots 7 and 9 in pivot plate 3.”) [Col 7, Lines 30-65] by bearing along the respective guidance guideway, a shape of each guidance guideway being such that the rotation of the control ring about the optical axis causes each of the mobile pins to move along the guidance guideways and cause the blades to move with respect to the fixed ring (“…the lip portions of the L-blades, not visible here, travel along and are guided by the linear slots 7 and 9 (See FIG. 1) in the pivot plate 3, assuring that the L-blades are confined and may only travel along the defined direction. And because slots 7 and 9 were formed parallel to the diagonal of the rectangular aperture in the pivot plate 3 as earlier described, the route or movement of the L-blades is along that diagonal.”) [Col 8, Lines 55-65].
But Gat does not explicitly disclose, wherein the fixed ring further comprising a plurality of n∈N≥2m guidance guideways, each mobile pin of each blade is able to move in a respective one of the respective guidance guideways, wherein none of any one of the guidance guideways is common to two blades.
However, within the same field of endeavor, Martin teaches, on Fig. 3A, that it is desirable in adjustable diaphragms, to include wherein each mobile pin (pins 13) of each blade (blade 1’) is able to move in a respective one of the respective guidance guideways (each blade has a pin in its respective grove 8) [Col 5, Lines 40-65] wherein none of any one of the guidance guideways is common to two blades (Fig. 3a shows each pin moves in its respective groove and each groove only has one pin) [Col 5, Lines 40-65].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify the system of Gat with Martin in order for the blades to be supported during linear motion, as taught by Martin [Col 5, Lines 40-65]
But Gat in view of Martin does not explicitly disclose, wherein the fixed ring further comprising a plurality of n∈N≥2m guidance guideways.
However, within the same field of endeavor, Gat teaches the guidance pathways (Slots 7 and 9) being large enough to accommodate a 2m number of mobile pins(depending pins 22b and 21b). Thus Gat explicitly teaches the configuration of guidance pathways according to the accommodation needs of a 2m number of mobile pins. One of such skill would also have been capable of simply dividing the guidance pathways (split slots 7 and 9 in half), such that the number of pathways was 2m, and one of ordinary skill would be motivated to so in order to maintain the center of the aperture in position, and control the movement of the blades [Col 8, Lines 55-65]. Note that the Court has held that mere duplication of parts has not patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced; In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify the system of Gat, in order to provide, maintain the center of the aperture in position, and control the movement of the blades, as taught by Gat [Col 8, Lines 55-65].
Re Claim 2, Gat in view of Martin discloses, the diaphragm as claimed in claim 1, and Gat further discloses on Fig. 1 and 4c, wherein each blade (blade 17 and 19) is associated with two respective guidance guideways (slots 7 and 9) in which the two mobile pins of this blade are able to move (mobile pins 22b and 21b of each blade move in slots 7 and 9) [Col 8, Lines 55-65].
Re Claim 3, Gat in view of Martin discloses, the diaphragm as claimed in claim 2, and Gat further discloses Fig. 3c, wherein the control pin (pin 25) of each blade (blade 17 and 19) is arranged between the two mobile pins of this blade (21b and 22b).
Re claim 4, Gat in view of Martin discloses, the diaphragm as claimed in claim 2, and Gat further discloses on Fig. 1, comprising m=2 blades (blades 17 and 19), and Martin discloses on Fig. 4a, for said predetermined shape to be a cat's eye (elliptical opening 2’ is a cat’s eye) [Col 6, Lines 10-30].
Re Claim 5, Gat in view of Martin discloses, the diaphragm as claimed in claim 1, and Gat further discloses on Fig. 1, wherein the fixed ring (pivot plate 3) and the control ring (Actuator plate 29) are configured to cause the control ring to rotate about the optical axis in a predetermined angular sector (“…with structure that permits the user, directly or indirectly, to rotate the actuator. In the assembled aperture, size adjustment of the aperture is accomplished by rotating the actuator a limited amount, either clockwise or counter-clockwise as appropriate”) [Col 5, Lines 50-55].
Re Claim 6, Gat in view of Martin discloses, the diaphragm as claimed in claim 5, and Gat further discloses on fig. 6b, wherein the fixed ring (pivot plate 3) and the control ring (actuator plate 29) are configured to define a maximum transverse dimension of the aperture (size adjustment of aperture by pivot plat e3 and actuator plate 29 wherein the size has a fixed width to height ratio) [Col 5, Lines 50-55 and Col 8, Lines 50-55].
Re Claim 7, Gat in view of Martin discloses, the diaphragm as claimed in claim 1, and Gat further discloses on Fig. 1, wherein the plurality of blades (blades 17 and 19) is arranged between the fixed ring (pivot plate 3) and the control ring (Actuator plate 29; See Fig. 1).
Re Claim 8, Gat in view of Martin discloses, the diaphragm as claimed in claim 1, and Gat further discloses on Fig. 1, wherein the blades (blades 17 and 19) and the guidance guideways (slots 7 and 9) exhibit central symmetry with respect to the optical axis (blades 17 and 19 and slots 7 and 9 are symmetric about optical axis)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Powell (US 20080304126 A1) teaches a variable aperture actuator.
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 RAY ALEXANDER DEAN whose telephone number is (571)272-4027. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30-5:00.
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, Bumsuk Won can be reached at (571)-272-2713. 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.
/RAY ALEXANDER DEAN/ Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/BUMSUK WON/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights