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 04/02/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant has argued that Kursula teaches selectively operating a cooling fan or generating vibration using a motor in a non-imaging electronic device, where vibration is generated by rotating motion of an eccentric mass for cooling, haptic feedback or alert purposes. Examiner disagrees with the argument as the rejection was based on the combination of Stavely, Seo and Kursula.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
The combination of Stavely, Seo and Kursula disclose or suggest a switching mechanism configured to supply motive power of an actuator to a light shielding curtain when a mechanical shutter is used and to supply the motive power of the actuator to a vibrator when an electronic shutter is used. As mentioned above that applicant’s arguments constitute arguments against the references individually.
Applicant has further argued that the combination of Stavely, Seo and Kursula fail to teach or suggest the features described in claim 1. Applicant further argues that the references fail to teach or suggest the features in claim 1. Examiner further disagrees. Examiner disagrees with the applicant and considers the argument non-persuasive that Kursula’s teaching of selectively operating (i.e. switching unit) a cooling fan or generating vibration using a motor in a non-imaging electronic device would not result in an apparatus in which motive power of a single actuator is selectively supplied to different mechanical components depending on shutter type, namely, being supplied to a light shielding curtain in a case where a mechanical shutter is used, and being supplied to vibrator in a case where an electronic shutter is used. Examiner disagrees with the argument based on the Seo, where Seo teaches supplying motive power via a shutter driving unit 152 (Seo , Figure 2 ) when mechanical shutter is used and supplying motive power of the actuator (Seo, Figure 2, vibration device driving unit 134, paragraph 0162) to the vibration unit (Seo, Figure 2, vibration device 19) in case where an electronic shutter is used, (Seo, Figure 2, in a case where the user selects the silent mode suitable for imaging under quiet environment, the system control unit 115 automatically switches the operation mode to an electronic shutter silent mode. and paragraph 0168). Even though Seo teaches or suggests of two actuators controlling a mechanical and electronic shutter, Kursula teaches selectable switching of the actuation of two different devices using a single actuator. Therefore, Examiner disagrees with applicant’s argument that the combination of Stavely, Seo and Kursula fail to teach or suggest an apparatus that is described in claims 1,3-7.
Applicant has amended the term a “switching unit” to a “switching mechanism” and argued that as amended should not be construed under 35 U.S.C. 112(f). Examiner disagrees. The term a “switching mechanism” as amended still invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f), as being a generic place holder, mechanism configured to supply motive power of the actuator to the light shielding curtain without reciting functional structure for performing the claimed function.
Applicant’s remaining arguments are considered moot in view of the new grounds of rejection below.
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:
"a switching mechanism" in claims 1,3-12
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 § 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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
Claim(s) 8, 9, 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stavely et al. (US 2004/0239767 A1) in view of Seo (US 2021/0271325 A1), in view of Kursula et al. (US 2018/0051711 A1), and further in view of Ito et al. (US 20250227381 A1).
[Claim 8]
Regarding claim 8, Stavely teaches an imaging device (device 100) comprising:
an actuator (mechanical actuator 114);
a light shielding curtain configured to operate by receiving a supply of motive power generated by the actuator to control exposure to an imaging element (paragraph 0015, mechanical shutter); a vibration unit configured to generate vibration by receiving a supply of the motive power generated by the actuator (mechanical actuator 114 is actuated to create tactile feedback for the user, Stavely,
paragraph 0021).
Stavely teaches that the invention of providing "tactile feedback can be provided to the device
user by actuating an existing mechanical actuator when a device function is implicated" paragraph 0012.
This device function comprises of a program and/or algorithm used to control actuation (paragraph
0017). Stavely further teaches actuators (114) used to manipulate the camera shutter and various other
motors adjusted through manipulation of user interface (Stavely, paragraph 0016), and programs and
algorithms to control one or more actuators (114) to generate vibration (Stavely, paragraph 0017).
However, Stavely does not explicitly teach the use of a switching unit configured to supply
motive power to the light shielding curtain (Stavely, mechanical shutter, paragraph 0017) in a case when
mechanical shutter is used and to supply the motive power of the actuator to the vibration unit in a case
where electronic shutter is used.
Seo discloses an imaging device (Seo, Figure 1A, camera 100) that supplies motive power of an
actuator (Seo, shutter driving unit 152) to the light shielding curtain (Seo, shutter unit 151) when
mechanical shutter is used and supply motive power of the actuator (Seo, Figure 2, vibration device
driving unit 134, paragraph 0162) to the vibration unit ( Seo, Figure 2, vibration device 109) in case
where an electronic shutter is used (Seo, Figure 2, Paragraph 0168).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective
filing date of the claimed invention to modify Stavely to provide motive forces to mechanical shutters
when the mechanical shutter is used and motive forces to a vibration unit when the electronic shutter is
used as taught by Seo for the benefits of having an imaging apparatus that provides haptic feedback to
an user by vibration with vibration actuator (Seo, Figure 2, system control unit 115) and control the light
shielding curtain using shutter driving unit (Seo, shutter driving unit 152).
However, the combination of Stavely and Seo does not explicitly teach the use of a single
actuator that is controlled by a switching unit to selectively provide motive power to light shielding
curtain in a case where mechanical shutter is used, and to supply the motive power of the actuator to
the vibration unit in a case where an electronic shutter is used.
Kursula teaches a switching unit (Kursula, Figure 1, motor controller 116) to supply motive
power of the actuator (Kursula, Figure 1 motor 104) to provide a motive force to a first device and
supply motive power to a vibration unit (Kursula, eccentric mass 110) in the vibration mode during
which the eccentric mass is rotated (Kursula, paragraph 0018). Switching unit of Kursula provides
selectable switching of the actuation of two different devices using a single actuator.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Stavely in view of Seo, to use a single actuator
switched by a switching unit to perform actuation of two different devices including a vibration device
as taught by Kursula for the reasons of using a single actuator to perform multiple functions that would
reduce the size, weight and reducing the imaging device expense.
However, Stavely, in view of Seo, and further in view of Kursula do not teach wherein to supply the motive power of the actuator to the vibrator during a readout period of the imaging element other than exposure period in a case where an electronic shutter is used.
However, Ito teaches Figure 2, an imaging device 100 that includes an imaging element 12, a vibration unit 32, including a vibrator. Ito further teaches in Figure 6, that processing timing up to display in the imaging device 100 during continuous shooting with a horizontal direction representing a time axis. In the figure, exposure (i.e. exposure period) EX indicates exposure of the image sensor of the imaging element unit 12, reading RD indicates reading of a captured image signal (i.e. readout) from the imaging element unit 12, development DV indicates development processing by the camera signal processing unit 13, and display dp indicates display of an image on the display unit 1. An arrow PF indicates a procedure of processing from the exposure to the display. That is, the exposure EX of one frame is performed, the reading RD of a captured image signal is performed after the exposure, the development DV is performed on the captured image signal, and the display dp of an image of one frame is performed through these steps, paragraphs 0123-0124. The vibration is indicated in window W1, at tse, where the Vibration is activated during a RD (i.e. readout) period and vibration does not occur during EX or exposure period.
Ito teaches that the vibration 32 does not generate vibration during exposure period and blurring does not occur in a still image, paragraph 0112.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Stavely, Seo and Kursula with Ito to have motive power supplied to the actuator (i.e. vibrator) during a readout period with the motivation of preventing blurring to occur in a still image.
[Claim 9]
Regarding claim 9, Stavely in view of Seo in view of Kursula and further in view of Ito teach all the limitations of claim 8, and teaches a vibration unit including a vibration member (Seo, paragraph 0016), but does not explicitly disclose that the vibration member that vibrates in a normal direction of an imaging surface of the imaging element or that the vibration member that vibrates within a predetermined angle range based on the normal direction of the imaging surface of the imaging element.
However, the vibration of the vibration member must occur in some direction in real space (e.g.
(X1, Y1, Z1)). Assuming a coordinate system XYZ is defined such that the imaging element is located on
the XY plane and the Z direction is normal to the imaging surface, a predetermined range can be defined
such that the range encompasses the direction (X1, Y1, Z1) (e.g. the range of all possible angles relative
to the Z direction; Note that the claim as written does not place any particular limitation on the
"predetermined range"). Since the vibration of Stavely in view of Seo and in view of Kursula would
necessarily fall within this "predetermined range", Stavely in view of Seo and in view of Kursula teaches
wherein the vibration member vibrates within a predetermined angle range based on the normal
direction of the imaging surface of the imaging element (i.e. the vibration occurs within the range
encompassing all possible angles relative to the Z direction).
[Claim 11]
Regarding Claim 11, and as applied to claim 8 above, Stavely in view of Seo, in view of Kursula and in view of Ito, do not explicitly teach continuous image capturing. Seo discloses an imaging device (Seo, camera 100), in a case where the images are captured continuously, the vibration unit (Seo, vibration device 109) generates vibration at a constant timing relative to a timing of exposure to the imaging element (Seo, Figure 13, paragraphs 0172, 0173, 0182).
[Claim 12]
Regarding Claim 12, and as applied to claim 8, Stavely in view of Seo in view of Kursula and further in view of Ito, disclose a motor (Kursula, Figure 1 motor 104) and rotates a rotor (Kursula, Figure 1 shaft 106) in a first direction and the rotor rotates in the opposite to the first direction (Kursula, paragraph 0023). The rotor while rotating in one direction activates the first device, (Kursula, cooling fan 102) and activates a second device when the rotor (Kursula, shaft 106) rotates in the opposite to the first direction, the vibration unit (Kursula, eccentric mass 110) generate vibration while in vibration mode (Kursula, paragraph 0023).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stavely et al. (US 2004/0239767 A1) in view of Seo (US 2021/0271325 A1), in view of Kursula et al. (US 2018/0051711 A1), and in view of Ito et al. (US 20250227381 A1), further in view of Shiga et al.(JP 2010206907-A)
[Claim 10]
Regarding claim 10, Stavely in view of Seo in view of Kursula and further in view of Ito teach all the limitations of claim 8, and teaches wherein the vibrator generates vibration by applying force to an elastic member that biases a vibration member to cause elastic deformation and then releasing the elastic member.
Stavely in view of Seo and in view of Kursula and further in view of Ito do not disclose a vibration unit that generates vibration by applying force to an elastic member that biases a vibration member to cause elastic deformation and then releasing the elastic member.
Seo teaches a vibration member (Seo, vibration device 109) that is a linear resonant actuator
(LRA) or a piezo electric type (Seo, paragraph 0043). However, Seo does not teach a vibration unit that
generates vibration by applying force to an elastic member that biases a vibration member to cause
elastic deformation and then releasing the elastic member.
However, Shiga discloses a vibration Unit (Shiga, Figure 1, vibration motor unit 1, and a vibrator
2) that includes vibration member (Shiga, vibration transmission member 4). The vibration motor unit
comprising of vibrator, vibrates and transmits power by using vibration and a pressurizing mechanism
(Shiga, Figure 1, vibration pressurizing mechanism 6) that biases the vibrator in a predetermined
direction. The vibration pressurizing mechanism is connected to an elastic material that is deformed and
then released (Shiga, contracted and expanded, paragraphs 0009, 0012).
Shiga further discloses a vibration member (Shiga, vibration transmission member 4) formed of
an elastically deformable material that contracts and expands and can easily transmit vibration (Shiga,
paragraph 0014). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Stavely as taught by Seo and Kursula and Ito and Shiga for the reasons of using vibration unit generating vibration by applying force to an elastic member that would contract and expand and that would be suitable for use in small drive device. Additionally, this combination only involves a simple substitution of one known element for another (Shiga, an elastic member that would contract and expand) to obtain predictable results such as generating vibration to provide feedback to the user during image capture.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 3- are allowed.
[Claims 1,3 -7]
Regarding claim 1,3-7, the prior art does not suggest or teach, an imaging device comprising: an actuator; a light shielding curtain configured to operate by receiving a supply of motive power generated by the actuator to control exposure to an imaging element; a vibrator configured to generate vibration by receiving a supply of the motive power generated by the actuator; and a switching mechanism configured to supply the motive power of the actuator to the light shielding curtain in a case where a mechanical shutter is used, and to supply the motive power of the actuator to the vibrator in a case where an electronic shutter is used, wherein the vibrator includes a vibration member that vibrates in a normal direction of an imaging surface of the imaging element.
Yumiki et al. (US-20100033587-A1) teaches an imaging device or a camera system, and an imaging unit that includes a vibration member comprised of a piezo electric element which causes drivers to vibrate in Z direction that is perpendicular to the imaging element (i.e. imaging surface). However, this ultrasonic vibration is very specific and does not teach haptic feedback as taught by Stavely.
Kawai et al. (US-2011/0261246 A1) teaches a similar digital camera that includes a piezo electric element which is driven by a drive unit and generate vibration that is perpendicular to the imaging surface. However, the vibration is generated for a specific purpose of removing dust from the image forming element such as image sensor and does not teach haptic feedback as taught by Stavely.
Therefore, while the prior art teaches similar systems, the prior art does not teach or reasonably suggest the specific requirements of the claim.
Conclusion
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 MEHEDI NMN HASSAN whose telephone number is (571)272-7173. The examiner can normally be reached 8am-5pm.
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 5712727564. 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.
/MEHEDI NMN HASSAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2637
/SINH TRAN/
Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2637
Prosecution Insights