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 7/22/2026 with respect to claims 1 and 7 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the signal indicating that the imaging apparatus is capturing an image (YES in step S101) merely determines whether the imaging apparatus is capturing or not and is not the signal according to which the angular displacement data is calculated or obtained. Specifically, Applicant argues that the signal in step S101 serves only as a logical condition for entering the image stabilization routine and does not govern the calculation of the angular displacement data itself. The examiner cannot agree.
No algorithm is provided in the claim which describes how the angular displacement data is calculated. Rather, the claim merely states that the accumulated deviation angle of the device is obtained “according to” a driving signal. The phrase “according to” is extremely broad and encompasses any relationship whatsoever between the accumulated deviation angle and the driving signal. In the case of Watanabe, step S104 which corresponds to “obtain[ing] an accumulated deviation angle of the electronic device” can only occur if it is determined that image capturing is in progress (YES at S101). Therefore, step S104 occurs “according to” step S101 as broadly claimed.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 14 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 § 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) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Takeuchi et al. (US 2006/0127071 A1) hereinafter referenced as Takeuchi.
Regarding claim 14, Takeuchi discloses
A lens control method of optical image stabilization, adapted for an electronic device (fig. 1), the electronic device comprises a lens (2; fig. 1), the method comprising:
obtaining an accumulated deviation angle ([0088]; Angular velocity data is integrated by the controller. Lens correction using the angular velocity data is performed at S5; fig. 3) of the electronic device according to a driving signal (Shooting signal; S1; fig. 3), wherein the driving signal comprises a shooting signal according to a user instruction (The driving signal is a shooting signal according to a user pressing a shutter button; S1; fig. 3);
determining a compensation angle (The integrated angular velocity data transmitted to the driver to drive the motors is the compensation angle; [0088]) according to only the accumulated deviation angle of the electronic device; and
controlling the lens to move according to the compensation angle (S5; fig. 3; [0088]).
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) 1-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe (US 2016/0269640 A1) in view of Official Notice.
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, wherein the driving signal comprises a shooting signal
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]).
However, Watanabe fails to explicitly disclose that the signal to cause image capturing is according to a user instruction. However, the examiner takes official notice of the fact that it was well known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to provide this.
Watanabe teaches determining whether image capturing is in progress, but is silent on how image capturing is triggered. Triggering image capture by a user input such as a press of a shutter button is well-known. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to substitute the undisclosed trigger for image capturing with a user input to achieve the predictable result of allowing the user to control when an image is captured.
Regarding claim 8, Watanabe and Official Notice, the combination, 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 and Official Notice, the combination, 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 and Official Notice, the combination, 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 and Official Notice, the combination, 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 and Official Notice, the combination, 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 and Official Notice, the combination, 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]).
Conclusion
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 7/25/2026
Prosecution Insights