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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) was filed with the application on 6/24/2024. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
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 1-6, 13-15, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yamazaki (US Patent Pub. # 2009/0269046).
As to claim 1, Yamazaki discloses an imaging apparatus comprising:
an angular velocity sensor (angular velocity sensor 49) for shake correction (Para 41); and
a flexible printed circuit (flexible printed circuit substrate 73) that includes the angular velocity sensor (49) and a plurality of wiring lines for transmission of a digital control signal (shake information) for controlling of operation of the angular velocity sensor (49) (Para 54). Yamazaki teaches shake information from the angular velocity sensors 49 is transmitted to the main substrate (not shown in the drawing) via this connecting part 73d (Para 54).
wherein the flexible printed circuit (73) is provided with a filter circuit (low pass filter (not shown in the drawing)) for suppression of a specific frequency of the control signal (shake information) (Para 54).
As to claim 2, Yamazaki teaches wherein the flexible printed circuit (73) includes a first wiring part (73c) in which patterns of the plurality of wiring lines are formed in parallel, one end of the first wiring part (73c) is provided with a connecting portion (73d) that is connected to a control circuit (main substrate) sending the control signal (shake information), and the other end of the first wiring part is provided with a circuit portion (49) on which electronic components (49) including the angular velocity sensor (49) and the filter circuit (low pass filter (not shown in the drawing)) are mounted (Para 54).
As to claim 3, Yamazaki teaches wherein the circuit portion (49) includes a first circuit portion (49a) and a second circuit portion (49b), and a second wiring part (73a and 73b) is provided between the first circuit portion (49a) and the second circuit portion(49b) (Para 54 and 55).
As to claim 4, Yamazaki teaches wherein the second wiring part (73a and 73b) is flexible (flexible printed circuit substrate 73) (Para 54).
As to claim 5, Yamazaki teaches wherein the first circuit portion (49a) and the second circuit portion (49b) are disposed such that a first plane and a second plane (planar parts 21a and 21b) intersect each other with the second wiring (73) part bent , where the first plane (21a) is a plane on which the first circuit portion (49a) is disposed and the second plane (21b) is a plane on which the second circuit portion (49b) is disposed (Para 59, 61, and 62).
As to claim 6, Yamazaki teaches wherein the first plane (21a) and the second plane (21b) are orthogonal (orthogonally) to each other (Para 62).
As to claim 13, Yamazaki teaches wherein the filter circuit (low pass filter (not shown in the drawing)) is mounted on the first circuit portion (49a) (Para 54).
As to claim 14, Yamazaki teaches wherein the first wiring part (73c) has a structure in which the patterns are formed on only one surface of the first wiring part and flexibility of the first wiring part is higher than flexibility of the circuit portion (49) (Para 74).
As to claim 15, Yamazaki teaches wherein the first wiring part (73) has a structure in which the patterns are formed on only one surface of the first wiring part and no protection film (fixed by coupling with mechanical coupling parts) is provided (Para 75).
As to claim 17, Yamazaki teaches wherein the electronic components (49) are mounted on only one surface of the circuit portion (49) (Para 54).
As to claim 18, Yamazaki teaches wherein a vibration-reducing member (rubber plates) is attached to a surface of the circuit portion (49) that is opposite to the one surface on which the electronic components (49) are mounted (Para 74).
As to claim 19, Yamazaki teaches wherein a thickness of the vibration-reducing member (rubber plates)is larger than a thickness of the flexible printed circuit (73) (Para 74).
As to claim 20, Yamazaki teaches wherein the filter circuit low pass filter (not shown in the drawing) is provided for a specific wiring line (shake information) among the plurality of wiring lines, of which a control signal communication frequency (shake information) is equal to or lower (low pass) than a set frequency (Para 54).
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.
Claims 7-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamazaki (US Patent Pub. # 2009/0269046) in view of Uenaka (US Patent Pub. # 2008/0298790).
As to claim 7, note the discussion above in regards to claims 1-3. Yamazaki does not teach wherein the circuit portion further includes a third circuit portion, and a third wiring part is provided between the second circuit portion and the third circuit portion. Uenaka teaches an angular velocity detection unit 25 has a first angular velocity sensor 26a, a second angular velocity sensor 26b, a third angular velocity sensor 26c, a first high-pass filter circuit 27a, a second high-pass filter circuit 27b, a third high-pass filter circuit 27c, a first amplifier 28a, a second amplifier 28b, and a third amplifier 28c (Para 48). A finding that Yamazaki contains a flexible printed circuit to connect two angular velocity sensor to the controller. A finding that one skilled in the art would have recognized that applying the same circuitry to add a third angular velocity sensor would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided a third angular velocity sensor as taught by Uenaka to the camera of Yamazaki, to provide an anti-shake apparatus (an image-stabilization apparatus) that can effectively perform the anti-shake operation for correcting hand-shake caused by roll, according to its severity (Para 7 of Uenaka).
As to claim 8, Yamazaki teaches wherein the third wiring part (73) is flexible (flexible) (Para 54).
As to claim 9, Uenaka teaches wherein the first circuit portion (26a), the second circuit portion(26b), and the third circuit portion (26c) are disposed such that a first plane (second direction y (the yaw)), a second plane (first direction x (the pitch)), and a third plane (third direction z (the roll)) intersect each other with the second wiring part and the third wiring part bent, where the first plane is a plane on which the first circuit portion is disposed, the second plane is a plane on which the second circuit portion is disposed, and the third plane is a plane on which the third circuit portion is disposed (Para 49-51).
As to claim 10, Uenaka teaches wherein the first plane (second direction y (the yaw)), the second plane (first direction x (the pitch)), and the third plane (third direction z (the roll)) are orthogonal to each other (Para 49-51).
As to claim 11, Uenaka teaches wherein the angular velocity sensor (26a-c) is provided for each of three axes which are a pitch axis (pitch), a yaw axis (yaw), and a roll axis (roll), and at least the angular velocity sensor (26a-c) for the pitch axis and the angular velocity sensor (26a-c) for the yaw axis are mounted on the second circuit portion or the third circuit portion (Para 49-51).
As to claim 12, Uenaka teaches wherein the angular velocity sensor (26c) for the roll axis (roll) is mounted on the first circuit portion (Para 51).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamazaki (US Patent Pub. # 2009/0269046) in view of Volkerink (US Patent # 12,080,108).
As to claim 16, note the discussion above in regards to claims 1 and 2. Yamazaki does not teach wherein the circuit portion has a structure in which the patterns are formed on both surfaces of the circuit portion. Volkerink teaches wherein the circuit portion has a structure in which the patterns are formed on both surfaces (double-sided flex circuit) of the circuit portion (Col. 13, lines 1-27). Volkerink teaches the flexible circuit 116 is implemented by one or more of a single-sided flex circuit, a double access or back bared flex circuit, a sculpted flex circuit, a double-sided flex circuit, a multi-layer flex circuit, a rigid flex circuit, and a polymer thick film flex circuit (Col. 13, lines 1-27). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided a double-sided flex circuit as taught by Volkerink to the camera of Yamazaki, to reduce potentially damaging asymmetric stresses that might be caused by the application of bending, torqueing, pressing, or other forces that may be applied to the flexible adhesive tape platform segment (Col. 12, lines 13-51 of Volkerink).
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamazaki (US Patent Pub. # 2009/0269046) in view of Mitani (US Patent # 2017/0103804).
As to claim 21, note the discussion above in regards to claims 1 and 20. Yamazaki does not teach wherein the specific wiring line is a chip select communication line through which a chip select signal for selection of one of a plurality of circuits to be controlled in serial communication is transmitted as the control signal. Mitani teaches wherein the specific wiring line is a chip select communication line through which a chip select signal (chip select (CS) terminal) for selection of one of a plurality of circuits to be controlled in serial communication (serial interface) is transmitted as the control signal (Para 24 and 28). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided a noise filter circuit to a chip select (CS) terminal as taught by Mitani to the camera of Yamazaki, to implement a writing error preventing function with high noise resistance (Para 12 of Mitani).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER K PETERSON whose telephone number is (571)270-1704. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7AM-4PM.
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 N Tran can be reached at 571-2727564. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER K PETERSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2637 2/13/2026