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.
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 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: “first acquisition module”, “second acquisition module” and “lens focus module” in claim 18.
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 § 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 – 2, 18 – 20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zheng (CN 113014790A translation provided by Applicant).
Regarding claim 1, Zheng discloses a lens focus method comprising: obtaining a target phase difference of a preview image captured by a main camera lens in a macro shooting mode (p.15, 39: obtaining the phase difference of the picture when the motor is located at the current position); obtaining a calibration data set corresponding to the macro shooting mode, where the calibration data set includes calibration phase differences and calibration currents for reference calibrated macro distances (p.15, 39: inputting the phase difference into the calibration library; using the calibration library and DCC data to calculate to obtain the defocusing distance); determining a target current based on a calibration current corresponding to a calibration phase difference that matches the target phase difference (p.15, 39: inputting the phase difference into the calibration library; using the calibration library and DCC data to calculate to obtain the defocusing distance); and driving the main camera lens to focus according to the target current (p.15, 39: finishing focusing according to the action instruction corresponding to the motor from the defocusing distance).
Regarding claim 2, Zheng discloses the limitations of claim 1. Zheng also teaches wherein driving the main camera lens to focus according to the target current comprises: driving the main camera lens to move to a candidate position according to the target current; and adjusting the main camera lens based on the candidate position until the main camera lens reaches a target focus position (p.15, 39: finishing focusing according to the action instruction corresponding to the motor from the defocusing distance).
Regarding claim 18, Zheng discloses a lens focus apparatus comprising: a first acquisition module configured to obtain a target phase difference of a preview image captured by a main camera lens in a macro shooting mode (p.15, 39: obtaining the phase difference of the picture when the motor is located at the current position); a second acquisition module configured to obtain a calibration data set corresponding to the macro shooting mode, wherein the calibration data set includes calibration phase differences and calibration currents for reference calibrated macro distances (p.15, 39: inputting the phase difference into the calibration library; using the calibration library and DCC data to calculate to obtain the defocusing distance); a current determination module configured to determine a target current based on a calibration current corresponding to a calibration phase difference that matches the target phase difference (p.15, 39: inputting the phase difference into the calibration library; using the calibration library and DCC data to calculate to obtain the defocusing distance); and a lens focus module configured to drive the main camera lens to focus according to the target current (p.15, 39: finishing focusing according to the action instruction corresponding to the motor from the defocusing distance).
Claim 19 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 18. Zheng also teaches a processor (p.22) and memory (needed to store calibration library).
Claim 20 rejected for the same reasons as claim 1.
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) 3 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zheng in view of Galor (US 2018/0349378).
Regarding claim 3, Zheng discloses the limitations of claim 2. Zheng fails to explicitly disclose wherein adjusting the main camera lens based on the candidate position until the main camera lens reaches the target focus position comprises: obtaining a candidate phase difference of preview image captured by the main camera lens at the candidate position; if the candidate phase difference meets a preset phase threshold, determining that the candidate position is the target focus position, and stopping movement of the main camera lens; if the candidate phase difference does not meet the preset phase threshold, determining that the candidate position is not the target focus position, and using a preset focusing strategy to move the main camera lens to the target focus position.
In the same field of endeavor, Galor teaches calibration for PDAF cameras wherein the processor 205 may determine that the image is out of focus in response to the phase difference being greater than zero. If it is out of focus (not meeting preset phase threshold), an AF process is performed. If it is not out of focus (meets preset threshold), the lens does not move (fig. 4; ¶54). In light of the teaching of Galor, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, to use Galor’s teaching in Zheng’s system because an artisan of ordinarily skill would recognize that this would result in reducing processing load during a single AF process and increase AF accuracy during continuous AF.
Regarding claim 4, Zheng in view of Galor disclose the limitations of claim 3. Galor also teaches wherein using the preset focusing strategy to move the main camera lens to the target focus position comprises: obtaining a contrast difference value of preview image captured by the main camera lens at the candidate position based on the preset focusing strategy; and moving the main camera lens to the target focus position based on the contrast difference value (fig. 4; ¶48, 56: main AF process may include the processor 205 performing a contrast AF process including determining a final lens position at which a captured image is in focus).
Claim(s) 12 – 13 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zheng in view of Lin (CN 113572956 machine translation provided).
Regarding claim 12, Zheng discloses the limitations of claim 1. Zheng fails to explicitly disclose wherein obtaining the target phase difference of the preview image captured by the main camera lens in the macro shooting mode comprises: determining multiple initial phase differences of the preview image captured by the main camera lens in the macro shooting mode; and using a maximum initial phase difference among the multiple initial phase differences as the target phase difference of the preview image.
In the same field of endeavor, Lin teaches a focusing method where the target phase difference data may also be calculated according to the phase difference in the plurality of focusing frames, such as target phase difference data is a maximum difference of the plurality of focusing frames (p.24; ¶2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Zheng with the teachings of Lin. Zheng discloses using phase detection auto focusing based on a target image. Lin teaches determining the target phase difference based on the maximum of multiple detections. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of using the maximum of multiple phase differences to obtain a target phase difference, as taught by Lin, with the invention of Zheng would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system.
Regarding claim 13, Zheng discloses the limitations of claim 1. Zheng fails to explicitly disclose wherein obtaining the target phase difference of the preview image captured by the main camera lens in the macro shooting mode comprises: determining multiple initial phase differences of the preview image captured by the main camera lens in the macro shooting mode; and using an average value of the multiple initial phase differences as the target phase difference of the preview image.
In the same field of endeavor, Lin teaches a focusing method where the electronic device determines that the average value of the phase differences in multiple focus frames is the target phase difference data (p.24; ¶2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Zheng with the teachings of Lin. Zheng discloses using phase detection auto focusing based on a target image. Lin teaches determining the target phase difference based on the average of multiple detections. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of using the average of multiple phase differences to obtain a target phase difference, as taught by Lin, with the invention of Zheng would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system.
Claim(s) 17 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zheng in view of Shiohara (US 2016/0044221)
Regarding claim 17, Zheng discloses the limitations of claim 1. Zheng fails to explicitly disclose further comprising before obtaining the target phase difference of the preview image captured by the main camera lens in the macro shooting mode: determining the device type of the main camera lens; and determining the calibration data set corresponding to the macro shooting mode based on the device type.
In the same field of endeavor, Shiohara teaches an imaging device that includes phase difference table TBL stored in a non-volatile memory 61 to specify the phase difference TD, wherein the type of the lens unit and focal length indicated by the identifying data described above and the phase difference TD are associated and stored (fig. 11; ¶112, 116). In light of the teaching of Shiohara, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, to use Shiohara’s teaching in Zheng’s system because an artisan of ordinarily skill would recognize that this would result in the ability to perform accurate AF regardless of the type of device detected.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5 – 11 and 14 – 16 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANTOINETTE T. SPINKS whose telephone number is (571)270-3749. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7am - 5pm EST.
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, Twyler Haskins can be reached at 571-272-7406. 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.
/ANTOINETTE T SPINKS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2639