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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 233 (figs. 1, 9). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: 300. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore the transmitter and receiver located at opposite sides of the lock hole (claim 15) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
The following title is suggested: MAGNETIC LOCK MECHANISM FOR CAMERA AND GIMBAL.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: positioning assembly (claim 3), detection assembly (claim 12).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 10, it recites that the magnetic attraction assembly or the coil assembly surrounds the surrounding wall. However, claim 10 ultimately depends from claim 8 which explicitly states that the coil assembly is disposed at the housing and the magnetic attraction assembly is disposed at the lock shaft. If the coil assembly is disposed at the housing and the magnetic attraction assembly is disposed at the lock shaft, the magnetic assembly cannot also surround a surrounding wall of the housing. Therefore, it is unclear what is being claimed.
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) 1-2, 5, 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Katsumata et al. (US 2022/0279126 A1) hereinafter referenced as Katsumata in view of Ohishi (US 2004/0017485 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Katsumata discloses
A camera comprising:
a sensor assembly (240; fig. 3) including a movable member (230; fig. 3A) and an image sensor (231; fig. 3) coupled to the movable member and configured to move together with the movable member;
a lock mechanism (250; fig. 3) configured to lock the movable member to limit movement of the movable member ([0043]),
However, Katsumata, fails to explicitly disclose that the lock mechanism includes a coil assembly and a magnetic attraction assembly where one of the coil assembly or the magnetic attraction assembly moves closer to or away from the movable member under an action of a magnetic field force to lock or unlock the movable member. However, the examiner maintains that it was well known in the art to provide this, as taught by Ohishi.
In a similar field of endeavor, Ohishi discloses the lock mechanism including a coil assembly (52; fig. 16B) and a magnetic attraction assembly (53; fig. 16B), and the coil assembly or the magnetic attraction assembly being configured to move closer to (fig. 11B) or away from (fig. 11A) the movable member (31; fig. 11) under an action of a magnetic field force in response to the coil assembly being energized, to lock or unlock the movable member ([0051]).
Katsumata teaches a lock for locking a movable member including an image sensor wherein the lock includes a motor which presses rubber protrusions up against the movable member to lock it in place. Ohishi teaches a lock for locking a movable member wherein the lock includes a shaft, hole, coil, and magnet wherein a magnetic force between the coil and magnet moves the shaft in and out of the hole to lock/unlock the movable member. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the lock of Katsumata with the lock Ohishi to achieve the predictable result of locking the blur correction system when no blur correction is executed so as not to affect imaging performance as disclosed in Ohishi ([0006]).
Regarding claim 2, Katsumata and Ohishi, the combination, discloses everything claimed as applied above (see claim 1), in addition, Ohishi discloses, wherein the magnetic attraction assembly (53; fig. 11) includes a permanent magnet or a metal magnetic attraction member ([0050]).
Katsumata teaches a lock for locking a movable member including an image sensor wherein the lock includes a motor which presses rubber protrusions up against the movable member to lock it in place. Ohishi teaches a lock for locking a movable member wherein the lock includes a shaft, hole, coil, and magnet wherein a magnetic force between the coil and magnet moves the shaft in and out of the hole to lock/unlock the movable member. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the lock of Katsumata with the lock Ohishi to achieve the predictable result of locking the blur correction system when no blur correction is executed so as not to affect imaging performance as disclosed in Ohishi ([0006]).
Regarding claim 5, Katsumata and Ohishi, the combination, discloses everything claimed as applied above (see claim 1), in addition, Katsumata discloses, wherein:
the sensor assembly further includes a fixed member (210, 220; fig. 3);
the movable member (230; fig. 3) is movably connected to the fixed member ([0046]);
the lock mechanism (250; fig. 3) is provided at one of the movable member and the fixed member ([0050]) for locking the movable member and the fixed member; and
the fixed member is configured to limit movement of the movable member (As the lock mechanism is attached to the fixed member, the fixed member ultimately limits the movement of the movable member; fig. 5).
Regarding claim 17, Katsumata and Ohishi, the combination, discloses everything claimed as applied above (see claim 5), in addition, Katsumata discloses, wherein the fixed member (210, 220; fig. 3) and the movable member (230; fig. 3) form a shake compensation device configured to drive the image sensor (231; fig. 3) to move when the camera shakes, to compensate for shake ([0029]).
Regarding claim 18, Katsumata and Ohishi, the combination, discloses everything claimed as applied above (see claim 13), in addition, Katsumata discloses, further comprising:
a shutdown button configured to respond to a user's trigger and shut down the camera; and a controller electrically connected to the shutdown button and the lock mechanism, and configured to control the lock mechanism to lock the movable member in response to the camera being shut down (fig. 13A).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Katsumata in view of Ohishi further in view of Xiang et al. (US 2021/002922 A1) hereinafter referenced as Xiang.
Regarding claim 3, Katsumata and Ohishi, the combination, discloses everything claimed as applied above (see claim 1), however, the combination, fails to explicitly disclose the positioning assembly. However, the examiner maintains that it was well known in the art to provide this, as taught by Xiang.
In a similar field of endeavor, Xiang discloses wherein the lock mechanism further includes:
a positioning assembly (304, 305; fig. 5) configured to keep the movable member in a locked state or an unlocked state in response to the coil assembly (302; fig. 5) being powered off or a power to the coil assembly being insufficient ([0069]; Despite 112(f) being invoked, the positioning assembly of Xiang is equivalent to the disclosed positioning assembly of the instant application as the positioning assembly of Xiang performs the identical function specified in the claim in substantially the same way, and produces the same results as the corresponding claimed positioning assembly).
The combination teaches a shaft, coil, and magnetic attraction assembly for moving the shaft in and out of a locking hole. Xiang teaches a shaft, coil, and magnetic attraction assembly for moving the shaft in and out of a locking hole and additionally providing another magnet and spring to hold the shaft in a locked or unlocked state after the power is off. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to improve the combination by applying the technique of providing an additional magnet and spring to maintain a locked or unlocked state after powering off the device to achieve the predictable result of reducing power consumption while maintaining the function of the lock.
Claim(s) 6-8, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Katsumata in view of Ohishi further in view of Tao (CN 2185775 Y).
Regarding claim 6, Katsumata and Ohishi, the combination, discloses everything claimed as applied above (see claim 5), Ohishi discloses wherein:
one of the fixed member and the movable member is provided with a lock hole (43a; fig. 16). However, the combination, fails to explicitly disclose the housing of the lock mechanism. However, the examiner maintains that it was well known in the art to provide this, as taught by Tao.
In a similar field of endeavor, Tao discloses the lock mechanism further includes:
a housing (Outer housing shown in fig. 7) installed at another of the fixed member and the movable member and provided with a shaft hole (Holes where shafts 3 exit the housing; fig. 7); and
a lock shaft (3; fig. 7) movably installed at the housing and configured to extend out of the housing through the shaft hole;
one of the coil assembly (Coil assembly 1 installed at the lock shaft 3; fig. 7) and the magnetic attraction assembly is installed at the lock shaft, and another of the coil assembly and the magnetic attraction assembly (2a, 2b; fig. 7) is installed at the housing;
the lock shaft is configured to move between:
a lock position (fig. 5), at which the lock shaft passes through the lock hole to lock the fixed member and the movable member, and
an unlock position (fig. 4), at which the lock shaft withdraws from the lock hole to unlock the fixed member and the movable member.
The combination teaches a lock mechanism which locks a movable member carrying an image sensor to a fixed member using a shaft, a corresponding lock hole, a coil, and a magnet. Tao teaches a lock mechanism included within a housing which locks one structure to another using a shaft, lock hole, coil, and magnets. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to improve the combination by applying the technique of providing a housing for the lock mechanism to achieve the predictable result of protecting the components inside from outside interference.
Regarding claim 7, Katsumata, Ohishi, and Tao, the combination, discloses everything claimed as applied above (see claim 6), in addition, Tao discloses, wherein:
the coil assembly (1; fig. 7) is installed at the lock shaft (3; fig. 7) and includes a first side and a second side opposite to the first side in an axial direction of the lock shaft;
the magnetic attraction assembly includes:
a first magnet (2a; fig. 7) installed at the housing and located at the first side of the coil assembly; and
a second magnet (2b; fig. 7) installed at the housing and located at the second side of the coil assembly;
in response to a current in a first direction passing through the coil assembly, the coil assembly attracts the first magnet and the lock shaft moves to the lock position (fig. 3); and
in response to a current in a second direction opposite to the first direction passing through the coil assembly, the coil assembly attracts the second magnet and the lock shaft moves to the unlock position (fig. 4).
The combination teaches a lock mechanism which locks a movable member carrying an image sensor to a fixed member using a shaft, a corresponding lock hole, a coil, and a magnet. Tao teaches a lock mechanism included within a housing which locks one structure to another using a shaft, lock hole, coil, and two magnets on opposite ends of the coil. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the lock structure of the combination with the lock structure of Tao to achieve the predictable result of improving the reliability and life-span of the lock as disclosed in Tao ([0003]).
Regarding claim 8, Katsuma, Ohishi, and Tao the combination, discloses everything claimed as applied above (see claim 6), in addition, Tao discloses,
wherein:
the magnetic attraction assembly (2; fig. 5) is installed at the lock shaft;
the magnetic attraction assembly includes a first side and a second side opposite to the first side in an axial direction of the lock shaft;
the coil assembly includes:
a first coil (1a; fig. 5) installed at the housing and located at the first side of the magnetic attraction assembly; and
a second coil (1b; fig. 5) installed at the housing and located at the second side of the magnetic attraction assembly;
in response to the first coil being energized, the magnetic attraction assembly attracts the first coil and the lock shaft moves to the lock position (fig. 3); and
in response to the second coil being energized, the magnetic attraction assembly attracts the second coil and the lock shaft moves to the unlock position (fig. 4).
The combination teaches a lock mechanism which locks a movable member carrying an image sensor to a fixed member using a shaft, a corresponding lock hole, a coil, and a magnet. Tao teaches a lock mechanism included within a housing which locks one structure to another using a shaft, lock hole, coil, and two magnets on opposite ends of the coil. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the lock structure of the combination with the lock structure of Tao to achieve the predictable result of improving the reliability and life-span of the lock as disclosed in Tao ([0003]).
Regarding claim 19, Katsumata and Ohishi, the combination, discloses everything claimed as applied above (see claim 1), however, the combination, fails to explicitly disclose the current passing through the coil is a DC pulse current. However, the examiner maintains that it was well known in the art to provide this, as taught by Tao.
In a similar field of endeavor, Tao discloses wherein a current passing through the coil assembly is a DC pulse current ([0015]; fig. 8).
The combination teaches providing current to a coil to control a lock. Tao teaches providing current to a coil to control a lock wherein the current is in the form of a DC pulse current. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the undisclosed form of current of the combination with a DC pulse to achieve the predictable result of saving power as disclosed in Tao ([0015]).
Claim(s) 12-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Katsumata in view of Ohishi further in view of Tao further in view of Huang (US 2012/0169070 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Katsumata, Ohishi, and Tao, the combination, discloses everything claimed as applied above (see claim 6), however, the combination fails to explicitly disclose a first shaft hole and a second shaft hole wherein the lock shaft goes through both. However, the examiner maintains that it was well known in the art to provide this, as taught by Huang.
In a similar field of endeavor, Huang discloses wherein:
the lock shaft (25; fig. 5) includes a first end and a second end opposite to the first end; the shaft hole (221; fig. 5) is one of a first shaft hole (right side hole; figs. 5-6) and a second shaft hole (left side hole; figs. 5-6; and the housing includes:
a first housing (Right housing which surrounds the magnet 22; fig. 5) provided with the first shaft hole, the first end of the lock shaft being configured to extend out of the housing through the first shaft hole (fig. 5); and
a second housing (Left housing which surrounds the magnet 23; figs. 5-6) provided with the second shaft hole, the second end of the lock shaft being configured to extend out of the housing through the second shaft hole (fig. 6).
The combination teaches a shaft of a lock mechanism extending out of a hole of a housing on one end during operation. Huang teaches a shaft of a lock mechanism extending out of both ends of a housing during operation. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide another hole on the other end of the housing of the lock mechanism to achieve the predictable result of reducing the weight of the device while maintaining the desired stroke.
Claim(s) 12-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Katsumata in view of Ohishi further in view of Tao further in view of Official Notice.
Regarding claim 12, Katsumata, Ohishi, and Tao, the combination, discloses everything claimed as applied above (see claim 6), however, the combination fails to explicitly disclose a detection assembly. 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.
The combination (specifically Katsumata) teaches determining whether or not the lock is in the locked state or not (S703; fig. 12), but is silent on how that determination is made. Determining whether or not a lock is in a locked state using a detection assembly 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 means of determining whether the lock is locked or not with a detection assembly to achieve the predictable result of saving power by not providing power when the device is locked.
Regarding claim 13, Katsumata, Ohishi, Tao, and Official Notice, the combination, discloses everything claimed as applied above (see claim 12), however, the combination fails to explicitly disclose a prompt assembly and controller connected to the prompt assembly to generate a prompt based on whether the lock is in the locked or unlocked position. 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.
The combination teaches a lock mechanism that is used for locking the movable member of an OIS with a fixed member. The combination also discloses determining whether or not the OIS is locked. Displaying information to the user which is known 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 improve the combination by applying the technique of displaying the known information regarding the state of the lock to achieve the predictable result of allowing the user to know what state the device is in.
Regarding claim 14, Katsumata, Ohishi, Tao, and Official Notice, the combination, discloses everything claimed as applied above (see claim 12), in addition, Tao discloses, a controller electrically connected to the ([0015]; fig. 8; Power is only provided to switch from a lock state to an unlock state and vice versa.). However, the combination fails to explicitly disclose a detection assembly. 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.
The combination (specifically Katsumata) teaches determining whether or not the lock is in the locked state or not (S703; fig. 12), but is silent on how that determination is made. The combination also discloses that power is only provided to the lock mechanism when switching the locking state. Determining whether or not a lock is in a locked state using a detection assembly 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 means of determining whether the lock is locked or not with a detection assembly to achieve the predictable result of saving power by not providing power when the device is locked.
Regarding claim 15, Katsumata, Ohishi, Tao, and Official Notice, the combination, discloses everything claimed as applied above (see claim 12), however, the combination fails to explicitly disclose that the detection assembly is one of a Hall sensor, a transmitter/receiver, or a micro switch. 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.
The combination teaches a detection assembly for detecting whether the lock is in the lock state or unlock state. Micro switches for determining whether or not a lock is in a lock state or unlock state are 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 type of detection assembly with a micro switch in the lock hole to be triggered by the lock shaft extending into the lock hole to achieve the predictable result of determining when the lock is in the lock state or unlock state and therefore save power by only providing power when necessary.
Regarding claim 16, Katsumata, Ohishi, and Tao, the combination, discloses everything claimed as applied above (see claim 6), however, the combination fails to explicitly disclose a user input for generating a locking or unlocking 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.
The combination teaches a locking mechanism for an OIS using a coil and magnet wherein the coil is energized to move a shaft into a lock position or unlocked position. Allowing user a control over mechanisms in a device 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 improve the combination by applying the technique of allowing the user to control the lock to achieve the predictable result of improving user operability.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sporer et al. (US 2016/0270874 A1) hereinafter referenced as Sporer in view of Tao.
Regarding claim 20, Sporer discloses
A gimbal comprising (fig. 1):
a rotatable joint (14; fig. 1) including:
a motor ([0063]);
a shaft arm (18; fig. 2) installed at the motor and configured to be driven by the motor (18b, 16; fig. 2) to rotate ([0063]); and
a lock mechanism (26, 28; fig. 2) provided at the motor or the shaft arm and configured to lock the motor and the shaft arm to limit movement of the shaft arm ([0073]), the lock mechanism ([0073]).
However, Sporer, fails to explicitly disclose the lock mechanism includes a coil assembly and a magnetic attraction assembly. However, the examiner maintains that it was well known in the art to provide this, as taught by Tao.
In a similar field of endeavor, Tao discloses the lock mechanism including a coil assembly (1a, 1b; fig. 5) and a magnetic attraction assembly (2; fig. 5), and the coil assembly or the magnetic attraction assembly being configured to move closer to or away from the [second component] under an action of a magnetic field force in response to the coil assembly being energized, to lock (fig. 3) or unlock (fig. 4).
Sporer teaches an arm that rotates with respect to a motor wherein the arm can be locked to the motor using a lock mechanism. Tao teaches a lock mechanism included within a housing which locks one structure to another using a shaft, lock hole, coil, and two magnets on opposite ends of the coil. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the lock structure of the combination with the lock structure of Tao to achieve the predictable result of improving the reliability and life-span of the lock as disclosed in Tao ([0003]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4 and 9 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:
Regarding claim 4, the prior art of record fails to disclose a magnetic yoke assembly installed at the coil assembly and configured to attract the permanent magnet such that the movable member remains in the locked state or the unlocked state in response to the coil assembly being powered off or the power being insufficient.
Regarding claim 9, the prior art of record fails to disclose a first magnetic yoke installed at a side of the first coil facing the magnetic attraction assembly, and configured to attract the magnetic attraction assembly so that the lock remains locked when the first coil is powered off and a second magnetic yoke installed at a side of the second coil facing the magnetic attraction assembly, and configured to attract the magnetic attraction assembly so that the lock remains unlocked when the second coil is powered off.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Dan (CN 106836995) discloses a lock using a magnet and coil (figs. 1-2).
Nemoto et al. (US 2007/0093108 A1) teaches a lock for locking a movable member carrying an image sensor to a fixed member wherein the movable member and fixed member are a part of an OIS system.
Seo (US 2007/0222544 A1) teaches a lock for locking a movable member carrying an image sensor to a fixed member wherein the movable member and fixed member are a part of an OIS system.
Katagishi et al. (US 2004/0085639 A1) teaches a lock for locking an OIS system.
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 2/21/2026