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 § 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.
Claims 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Barros et al (US PGPub 2016/0219202 A1).
With regard to claim 11: Barros discloses an image capture system which includes an image capture apparatus including a body (the combination of a smartphone and case, see Figure 1) and a mounting member connected to the body (a micro-bayonet interface, discussed in ¶0146-0147), and an accessory (lens) configured for releasable connection the image capture apparatus, with the accessory being disclosed as generating a magnetic field facilitating automatic detection and identification of the accessory by the image capture apparatus upon connection (see ¶0119-0120).
With regard to claim 12: The image capture apparatus of Barros is disclosed as including hall sensors 30 which interface with magnets 24 in the accessory, see ¶0119.
With regard to claim 13: The halls sensor includes first and second hall sensors and the magnets includes a first magnet and a second magnet (four hall sensors and four magnets are disclosed, see ¶0120)
With regard to claim 14: Barros discloses implementing the detection system as an array of four hall sensors, spaced apart from each other along an arc shape, see Figures 1 and 2A. In the combination the use of an arc shape for sensor placement results in an array which has sensors spaced in both the height and width directions of image capture apparatus.
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 1-2, 5, 7-8, and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vitale (US PGPub 2022/0400196 A1) in view of Barros.
With regard to claim 1, and 16-18: Vitale discloses an image capture system (the combination of one of the camera bodies of Figures 1A or 2B, an optical mounting arrangement including 512 of Figure 5A, and the lens module 704 of Figure 7A-7B, see ¶0080 and 0095 indicating that the assembly is combined with either of the camera bodies and ¶0112 indicating that 704 is intended for attachment to a camera body equipped with 512) which includes a body which defines a waterproof internal compartment (Vitale provides multiple indications that the camera body is waterproof, see for examples ¶0091 and ¶0094 mentioning watertight connections and ¶0024 noting that such waterproof sealing connections are intended to maintain water resistance or waterproofing of an image capture device), and a mounting member (bayonet 512) which is connected to the body, the mounting member including a base 514 which defines at least one relief extending along a height direction of the body (the reliefs take the form of fastener recesses 550, which extend through the base 514 and have some amount of extension along a heigh direction in order to allow for passage of the fasteners are noted in ¶0095. The term “relief” is being interpreted in light of the manner in which it is used in the specification, see ¶0133 as filed and as published which notes that an alternate term for “relief” is a “cutout”, which the holes 550 can be reasonably considered to be), and a collar extending forwardly from the base (the cylindrical part upon which fingers 520 are formed). The collar defines an arcuate channel (the space between the fingers 520) and has first and second stops (the fingers 520 themselves, which act as stops by interacting with element 714 of the attached lens, see ¶0112-0113) positioned on opposite ends of the arcuate channel; and an accessory (lens module 704 and associated modular lens 710).
The accessory of Vitale includes a frame (the portion of 704 in front of the mounting structure which receives the fingers in slots 712). The examiner notes that the details of the frame structure is not discussed in reference to the lens module 704 but given the resemblance to previous lens structures and repeated reference back to earlier figures to describe functionality (see ¶0114-0115), Vitale reasonably conveys to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the front frame structure of 704 would be similar to that of 504 which is shown in Figures 5A-5B. The accessory of Vitale further includes an optical element 710 which is supported by the frame and an alignment member (combination of 718 and the structure defining finger recesses 712) extending rearwardly form the frame and configured for engagement with the first and second stops such that the accessory is rotatable in relation to the mounting member through a fixed range of angular motion (see ¶0112-0114).
Vitale does not disclose the inclusion of any hall sensors or magnets connected to the accessory frame, and while Vitale indicates that a number of different lenses are intended to be attached to the camera body (see ¶0023, 0077, 0079, 0116 indicating attachment of modular lenses of various functionality to the camera body), Vitale does not disclose any provision for automatic detection and identification of the attached accessory based on output from a sensor with which a part of the accessory interfaces.
Barros teaches that the identity and optical configuration of an attachable optical accessory can be automatically detected by a device by providing hall sensors operatively connected to the device’s control system in the device and embedding magnets into the optical accessory. This system allows for the automatic detection of attachment and automatic identification of the attached item, discriminating between specially designed lenses and non-conforming lenses as discussed in ¶0118-0121.
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 image capture system of Vitale to utilize the magnetic identification system taught by Barros in order to allow for the image capture apparatus to automatically detect that a modular lens has been attached and identify the type of modular lens attached.
With regard to claim 2: Barros teaches implementing the detection system as an array of four hall sensors, spaced apart from each other along an arc shape, see Figures 1 and 2A. In the combination the use of an arc shape for sensor placement results in an array which has sensors spaced in both the height and width directions of the body.
With regard to claim 7: The arcuate channel of Vitale is configured such that the alignment member is received therein, with the alignment member movable through the arcuate channel during rotation of the accessory, see ¶0112-0114.
With regard to claim 8: Barros teaches that the magnets should be “built-into” the lens, see ¶0119. In the combination a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to have embedded the magnets into the accessory lens in order to fix the magnets in place and minimize the possibility that a magnet detaches from the lens and gets lost (as this would render the lens inoperable as it would not be properly detected by the camera).
With regard to claims 5 and 19: The stops of Vitale are separated by less than 180 degrees. There are four fingers present, and they appear to be roughly equally spaced around the perimeter of the collar which indicates a separation of 90 degrees which is approximately 100° as claimed in claim 4 (90° being within 20% of 100°).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vitale and Barros in further view of Kim et al (KR 2014-0000078 A, English machine translation attached).
With regard to claim 3: Vitale does not teach the inclusion of a heat sink positioned within the body nor the inclusion of a flexible printed circuit (FPC) connected to the heat sink.
Kim teaches that it is useful to provide an image sensor with a heat sink, rightly coupled to a FPC which attaches to the sensor, in order to improve heat dissipation from the sensor and protect the relatively fragile connection of the image sensor to the FPC (see page 5 of the English machine translation, paragraph starting “For more efficient heat dissipation” through page 6).
A person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to have provided the image capture system of Vitale with a FPC and attached heatsink structure as taught by Kim in order to improve heat dissipation of the image sensor and protect the electrical connections of the image sensor.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barros in further view of Hung (US Patent 10,715,706 B2).
With regard to claim 15: Barros does not disclose the inclusion of a base as part of the mounting member, the base including a relief extending along a heigh of the image capture apparatus with the relief being generally aligned with the at least one hall sensor and the at least one magnet so as to inhibit interference with the magnetic field.
Hung teaches configuring a mounting interface of an accessory for a mobile device using magnetic identification to have a base portion 503 with reliefs 5031 corresponding to the magnetic sensing elements of the identification system to allow the magnetic fields from the accessory magnets to be sensed by the sensors, see Figure 6A and column 4 lines 15-46).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have configured the system of Barros to have four reliefs in a base portion of a mount interface as taught by Hung in order to ensure that the hall sensors of Barros can properly detect the magnetic fields of the lens magnets.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vitale and Barros in further view of Hung.
With regard to claim 20: Vitale does not disclose the inclusion relief extending along a heigh of the image capture apparatus and being generally aligned with the at least one hall sensor and the at least one magnet so as to inhibit interference with the magnetic field.
Hung teaches configuring a mounting interface of an accessory for a mobile device using magnetic identification to have a base portion 503 with reliefs 5031 corresponding to the magnetic sensing elements of the identification system to allow the magnetic fields from the accessory magnets to be sensed by the sensors, see Figure 6A and column 4 lines 15-46).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have configured the system of Barros to have four reliefs in a base portion of a mount interface as taught by Hung in order to ensure that the hall sensors of Barros can properly detect the magnetic fields of the lens magnets.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 6, and 9-10 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 prior art of record, alone or in combination, does not disclose nor indicates that a person having ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing would have found obvious the claimed inclusion of additional structure into the image capture apparatus, including a heat sink with FPCB, structure related to embedding of the magnet into the accessory, or arrangement of the relief with regard to the halls sensor(s).
With regard to claim 4: The prior art does teach the inclusion of heatsinks and associated FPCs, but only in regard to the image sensor as taught by Kim and not the attachment of lens-identifying hall sensors (which would be positioned at a point remote from the image sensor itself.
With regard to claim 6: The prior art does not teach positioning the alignment member and magnets at opposite ends of the accessory. The prior art generally appears to position the magnets radially outside of the mounting interface, where the relative positioning of the alignment structure and magnets would not be constrained by each other. In addition to Barros, see for example Hung (US Patent 10,715,706 B2) and Kang (US Patent 8,755,850 B2).
With regard to claim 9-10: The prior art does not teach the positioning of magnets within bosses of the attached accessory. The prior art which incorporates magnets (Barros, Hung, Kang) appears to integrate the magnets within the bulk of the accessory.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The examiner notes that claims 16-20 do not require that the identification be conducted through magnetic means, and thus prior art documents which make use of other methods for automatic lens identification such as Kranz (US Patent 7,848,634 B2) which uses optical identification or even electrical communication systems such as Nishio et al (US Patent 10,545,393 B2), which are relatively ubiquitous in interchangeable lens camera systems, would be relevant to the claims as written.
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