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 filed 1/16/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Watanabe adjusts for centering, i.e., pulling the lens to return the optical center (paragraph [0051] of Watanabe cites that “performs control to return the shift lens 103 to the center position”) and therefore Watanabe fails to disclose controlling the lens to move according to the compensation angle through the driving device to suppress the lens from returning to an optical center. The examiner cannot agree.
While Watanabe does perform control to return the shift lens 103 to the center position (S105; fig. 9), it only does this in a blanking period (No at S103; fig. 9). In an exposure period (Yes at S103; fig. 9), the centering step is skipped entirely and the shift lens is driven (S106; fig. 9) based on the angular velocity data ([0119], [0117]). Watanabe explicitly states this in paragraphs [0081] and [0082] which state “[i]n the blanking period of the frame F2, the image shake correction control unit 117 performs centering control for driving the shift lens 103 to return to the center position…When the blanking signal is switched to the exposure period, the image shake correction control unit 117 drives again the shift lens 103 to perform image shake correction based on the shake data.” Therefore, Watanabe’s device operates in two modes. The first mode is a blanking interval mode and the second mode is an exposure period mode. In the blanking interval mode centering is performed and in the exposure period mode image shake is corrected without performing centering. This is displayed even further in figs. 4A-4B.
As centering is not performed during image shake correction during the exposure period, it can be said that the lens is controlled to move according to the compensation angle to suppress the lens from returning to an optical center as claimed. Therefore, the rejection of claims 1 and 7 are maintained.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 1/16/2026. These drawings are acceptable.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Watanabe (US 2016/0269640 A1).
Regarding claim 1, it discloses a method for implementing the apparatus of claim 7. Thus, claim 1 is an inherent variation of claim 7 and is interpreted and rejected for the same reasons as stated below (see claim 7).
Regarding claim 2, it discloses a method for implementing the apparatus of claim 8. Thus, claim 2 is an inherent variation of claim 8 and is interpreted and rejected for the same reasons as stated below (see claim 8).
Regarding claim 3, it discloses a method for implementing the apparatus of claim 9. Thus, claim 3 is an inherent variation of claim 9 and is interpreted and rejected for the same reasons as stated below (see claim 9).
Regarding claim 4, it discloses a method for implementing the apparatus of claim 10. Thus, claim 4 is an inherent variation of claim 10 and is interpreted and rejected for the same reasons as stated below (see claim 10).
Regarding claim 5, it discloses a method for implementing the apparatus of claim 11. Thus, claim 5 is an inherent variation of claim 11 and is interpreted and rejected for the same reasons as stated below (see claim 11).
Regarding claim 6, it discloses a method for implementing the apparatus of claim 12. Thus, claim 6 is an inherent variation of claim 12 and is interpreted and rejected for the same reasons as stated below (see claim 12).
Regarding claim 7, Watanabe discloses
An electronic device with optical image stabilization, comprising:
a motion sensor (116; fig. 2);
a lens (103; fig. 2);
a driving device (212, 213; fig. 2), configured to move the lens; and
a controller (117; fig. 2), coupled to the motion sensor, the lens position sensor and the driving device, is configured to:
obtain an accumulated deviation angle (Output of integrator 204; fig. 2) of the electronic device according to a driving signal (Yes at S101; fig. 9) through the motion sensor;
determine a compensation angle according to the accumulated deviation angle of the electronic device (Output of saturation prevention control unit 205); and
control the lens to move according to the compensation angle through the driving device (S106 sates that the image shake correction unit 117 drives the shift lens 103 based on the correction amount data calculated in S104. S104 states that the correction amount data is calculated based on the angular velocity data when YES at S103) to suppress the lens from returning to an optical center (Centering processing (S105) is NOT performed during the exposure period (YES at S103; fig. 9. Therefore, it can be said that the lens is suppressed from returning to an optical center during the exposure period; [0081]-[0083]).
Regarding claim 8, Watanabe discloses everything claimed as applied above (see claim 7), in addition, Watanabe discloses, wherein the controller is configured to:
obtain an initial angular position of the lens relative to a reference direction according to the driving signal ([0057]; The position of the shift lens 103 output by the position detection unit 207 is the “initial angular position of the lens relative to a reference direction”.); and
determine a target angular position (The difference between the drive target position and the position data; [0057]) of the lens according to the initial angular position and the compensation angle.
Regarding claim 9, Watanabe discloses everything claimed as applied above (see claim 8), in addition, Watanabe discloses, wherein the controller is configured to:
control the driving device to move the lens according to the target angular position ([0057]-[0060]; fig. 2).
Regarding claim 10, Watanabe discloses everything claimed as applied above (see claim 7), in addition, Watanabe discloses, wherein the controller is configured to:
obtain a motion sensing data provided by the motion sensor, wherein the motion sensing data comprises an angle sensing data, an angular velocity sensing data (116; fig. 2) or a linear acceleration sensing data; and
determine the accumulated deviation angle of the electronic device according to the motion sensing data (Motion data from the angular velocity sensor is ultimately integrated at 204 to arrive at the accumulated deviation angle; [0050]).
Regarding claim 11, Watanabe discloses everything claimed as applied above (see claim 10), in addition, Watanabe discloses, wherein the controller comprises a filter circuit (202; fig. 2), the filter circuit filters the motion sensing data (Output of angular velocity sensor 116).
Regarding claim 12, Watanabe discloses everything claimed as applied above (see claim 10), in addition, Watanabe discloses, wherein the controller comprises an integrating circuit (204; fig. 2), when the motion sensing data is the angular velocity sensing data or the linear acceleration sensing data, the integrating circuit integrates the motion sensing data and performs necessary calculations to generate the accumulated deviation angle ([0050]).
Regarding claim 13, Watanabe discloses everything claimed as applied above (see claim 10), in addition, Watanabe discloses, wherein the driving signal comprises a shooting signal (S101; fig. 9), the electronic device further comprises an image sensor, the image sensor starts capturing at least one frame of image in response to the driving signal ([0115]).
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Morotomi et al. (US 2018/0184005 A1) hereinafter referenced as Morotomi.
Regarding claim 14, Okada discloses
A lens control method of optical image stabilization, adapted for an electronic device (fig. 3), the electronic device comprises a lens (21; fig. 3), the method comprising:
obtaining an accumulated deviation angle (Output of 6; fig. 3) of the electronic device according to a driving signal (The inherent signal that causes the vibrating detecting sensor to start detecting vibration; fig. 3);
determining a compensation angle (Output of 8; fig. 3) according to only the accumulated deviation angle of the electronic device ([0067]); and
controlling the lens to move according to the compensation angle ([0046]; fig. 3; The position of the lens 21 is controlled by the open-loop control shown in fig. 3 which is according to the output of 8. It should also be noted that the fig. 5 embodiment also reads on the claim. Specifically, although outputs from the first 11 and second memory 12 are combined with an output from the image stabilizing unit 8 to control the driver, the output of the image stabilizing unit is still based only on the vibration detecting sensor and therefore the compensation angle is according to only the accumulated deviation angle of the electronic device. The lens is subsequently controlled at least in part by the output of the image stabilizing unit (the compensation angle).).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Taketomi (US 2019/0302401 A1) teaches switching between an open-loop control and a closed-loop control (fig. 2) wherein the open-loop control does not require a position detecting element.
Okada et al. (US 2021/0333568 A1) teaches an open-loop control which moves the correction lens 30 to a target position without using the detected position of the correction lens 30 (fig. 2; [0053]).
Nagamura et al. (US 2024/0163556 A1) teaches calculating a lens position without using a detection sensor and using the calculated lens position to perform shake correction.
Sakurai et al. (US 2015/0281581 A1) teaches a BIS system with open-loop control without the position sensor ([0035]).
Fukasaka (US 6,359,648 B1) teaches controlling the OIS with only information from a motion detector without using a position detection device (11:8-11).
Sakurai et al. (US 2015/0281582 A1) teaches a BIS system with open-loop control without the position sensor ([0037]).
Hu et al. (US 2020/0249425 A1) teaches a switching from a close-loop mode to an open-loop mode where the movable holder 1830 holding the lens is not moved according to the position sensing assembly S1 ([0042]; fig. 4).
Hu et al. (US 2020/0249421 A1) teaches a switching from a close-loop mode to an open-loop mode where the movable holder 1830 holding the lens is not moved according to the position sensing assembly S1 ([0271]; fig. 43).
Li et al. (CN 114563855) teaches a lens driving device with open-loop control that does not include a Hall sensor where the position of the lens is controlled based on a gyro signal.
Sakamoto (KR 10-2023-0112533) teaches switching between using a detection position of the lens or a target position of the lens to control the position of the lens.
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 PAUL M BERARDESCA whose telephone number is (571)270-3579. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 10-8, Fri 10-2.
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, Sinh Tran can be reached at (571)272-7564. 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.
PAUL M. BERARDESCA
Examiner
Art Unit 2637
/PAUL M BERARDESCA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2637 4/22/2026
Prosecution Insights