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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 4: The abbreviation “PWM” requires a definition.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 6, 9-11, 13-14, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 6 recites the broad recitation “wherein the threshold is … 10%”, and the claim also recites “wherein the threshold is 1%, preferably 5%” which are the narrower statements of the ranges/limitations. The claim is considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the spare slot" in line 3 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the measurement pulse" in lines 1-2 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 14 recites the broad recitation “wherein the dedicated measurement sub-slot is provided in a fixed proportion of a time slot of the series of time slots”, and the claim also recites “optionally in half of a time slot of the series of time slots” which is the narrower statement of the ranges/limitations. The claim is considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the spare slot" in line 3 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being incomplete for omitting an essential step, such omission amounting to a gap between the steps. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted step is: “determining the width of overlap of PWM pulses in each pair of PWM pulses”.
In order to perform the claimed step of “increasing the duty and/or amplitude of overlapping PWM pulses in dependence on the width of overlap”, the width of the overlap must first be determined.
Claim 18 recites a similar step of “increasing the duty and/or amplitude of overlapping PWM pulses in dependence on the width of overlap”, but first recites the necessary step “determining the width of overlap of PWM pulses in each pair of PWM pulses”.
Examiner suggests amending claim 22 to include similar language to claim 18 to resolve this issue, i.e., adding the “determining” step.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 12-15, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Brown et al. (US 2013/0300880; “Brown”).
Regarding claim 1, Brown teaches a method of controlling power delivered to an actuator assembly (10; figures 1 and 11) comprising at least four actuator components (wires 1-8) arranged, on actuation, to move a movable part (11) relative to a support structure (12), the method comprising:
scheduling PWM control signals (PWM drive signals; para. [0055]) comprising a series of PWM pulses (See pulses in timing diagrams of figures 4, 5, 10) for driving actuation of the at least four actuator components (wires 1-8), wherein the PWM pulses are scheduled in a series of time slots defined by a PWM frequency (See time slots in timing diagrams of figures 4, 5, 10), each time slot being divided into a plurality of sub-slots (Each time slot is divided into 8 sub-slots. Figures 4, 5, 10); and
sorting the PWM pulses by width into pairs (The pulses in adjacent control/drive signals (Q, I) in figures 4,5, and 10 are interpreted as pulse pairs. For example, Q1/Q2, Q3/Q4, I1/I2, and I3/I4 are interpreted as pulse pairs.), wherein each pair of PWM pulses is scheduled in a respective sub-slot and is allowed to overlap in the respective sub-slot (Overlapping pulses are shown in various sub-slots of figures 4, 5, and 10.).
Regarding claim 2, Brown teaches wherein the PWM pulses are periodically sorted by width into pairs (Because the pulses pairs are interpreted as pulses in adjacent control/drive signals (Q, I) in figures 4,5, and 10, e.g., Q1/Q2, Q3/Q4, I1/I2, and I3/I4, the periodic sorting is interpreted as happening with each pulse.).
As for claim 3, Brown teaches wherein the PWM pulses are sorted by width into pairs periodically upon modification of the widths of the PWM pulses (Para. [0055], [0079], [0086], [0096], [0101] teach varying duty/width of the PWM pulses.).
As for claim 12, Brown teaches scheduling a measurement pulse for measuring an electrical characteristic of the actuator component (See resistance measuring pulses in figures 4 and 5).
Regarding claim 13, Brown teaches wherein the measurement pulse is scheduled in a dedicated measurement sub-slot (See location of resistance measuring pulses in respective sub-slots in figures 4 and 5.).
Regarding claim 14, Brown teaches wherein the dedicated measurement sub-slot is provided in a fixed proportion of a time slot of the series of time slots (See the relative size of the measurement pulses in figures 4 and 5 with respect to each time slot.), optionally in half of a time slot of the series of time slots.
Regarding claim 15, Brown teaches a method according to claim 1 for controlling power delivered to an actuator assembly (10; figures 1 and 11) comprising at least eight actuator components (wires 1-8) arranged, on actuation, to move a movable part (11) relative to a support structure (12), the method comprising:
scheduling PWM control signals (PWM drive signals; para. [0055]) comprising the series of PWM pulses (See pulses in timing diagrams of figures 4, 5, 10) for driving actuation of the at least eight actuator components (wires 1-8); and
sorting the PWM pulses by width into at least four pairs (The pulses in adjacent control/drive signals (Q, I) in figures 4,5, and 10 are interpreted as pulse pairs. For example, Q1/Q2, Q3/Q4, I1/I2, and I3/I4 are interpreted as pulse pairs.), such that each pair of PWM pulses is applied in a respective sub-slot and is allowed to overlap in the respective sub-slot (Overlapping pulses are shown in various sub-slots of figures 4, 5, and 10.).
Regarding claim 24, Brown teaches a method for controlling power delivered to an actuator assembly (10; figures 1 and 11) comprising at least two actuator components (wires 1-8) arranged, on actuation, to move a movable part (11) relative to a support structure (12), the method comprising:
scheduling PWM control signals (PWM drive signals; para. [0055]) comprising a series of PWM pulses (See pulses in timing diagrams of figures 4, 5, 10) for driving actuation of the at least two actuator components (wires 1-8);
selectively operating in i) a low-power mode in which PWM pulses are applied sequentially (Low-power mode occurs during a time when one pulse is applied and another pulse is not applied. For example, see sub-slot 2 within time slot 1 in figure 4; wherein pulse Q1 is applied and pulse Q2 is not applied.), and ii) a high-power mode in which PWM pulses overlap (High-power mode occurs during a time when two applied pulses overlap. For example, see sub-slot 3 within time slot 1 in figure 4; wherein pulses Q1 and Q2 are applied and overlapped.).
Claims 1-3, 7, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kim (US 2020/0116135).
Regarding claim 1, Kim teaches a method of controlling power delivered to an actuator assembly (10 in figure 4 and shown as actuator 20 in figure 9) comprising at least four actuator components (wires 141-144 in figure 4 and shown as wires 1-4 in figure 9) arranged, on actuation, to move a movable part (frame 120 with lens barrel 130) relative to a support structure (housing 110), the method comprising:
scheduling PWM control signals (see figure 10) comprising a series of PWM pulses (Sdr shown applied to wires 1-4 in figure 10; para. [0100]) for driving actuation of the at least four actuator components (wires 141-144 in figure 4 and shown as wires 1-4 in figure 9), wherein the PWM pulses are scheduled in a series of time slots defined by a PWM frequency, each time slot being divided into a plurality of sub-slots (A time slot is interpreted as the time required for four pulses in figure 10. The time slot is then divided into four sub-slots.); and
sorting the PWM pulses by width into pairs (The pulses in adjacent control/drive signals in figure 10 are interpreted as pulse pairs. For example, pulses on wires 1-2 and on wires 3-4 in figure 10 are interpreted as pulse pairs.), wherein each pair of PWM pulses is scheduled in a respective sub-slot and is allowed to overlap in the respective sub-slot (Overlapping pulses are shown in various sub-slots of figure 10.).
Regarding claim 2, Kim teaches wherein the PWM pulses are periodically sorted by width into pairs (Because the pulses pairs are interpreted as pulses in adjacent control/drive signals in figure 10, e.g., wires 1-2 and wires 3-4, the periodic sorting is interpreted as happening with each pulse.).
As for claim 3, Kim teaches wherein the PWM pulses are sorted by width into pairs periodically upon modification of the widths of the PWM pulses (Para. [0115]-[0120], [0132] teach varying duty/width of the PWM pulses.).
As for claim 7, Kim teaches wherein within each sub-slot, a first PWM pulse of the respective pair starts at the beginning of the sub-slot and a second PWM pulse of the respective pair ends at the end of the sub-slot (As seen in figure 10, the pulses all start at the beginning of a sub-slot and end at the end of the sub-slot.).
Regarding claim 24, Kim teaches a method for controlling power delivered to an actuator assembly (10 in figure 4 and shown as actuator 20 in figure 9) comprising at least two actuator components (wires 141-144 in figure 4 and shown as wires 1-4 in figure 9) arranged, on actuation, to move a movable part (frame 120 with lens barrel 130) relative to a support structure (housing 110), the method comprising:
scheduling PWM control signals (see figure 10) comprising a series of PWM pulses (Sdr shown applied to wires 1-4 in figure 10; para. [0100]) for driving actuation of the at least two actuator components (wires 141-144 in figure 4 and shown as wires 1-4 in figure 9);
selectively operating in i) a low-power mode in which PWM pulses are applied sequentially, and ii) a high-power mode in which PWM pulses overlap (Para. [0101] teaches driving the wires either sequentially or simultaneously.).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-5, 8, 16, and 18 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.
Claims 9-11, and 17 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in this Office action and to include 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: The best prior art references of record, Brown and Kim, fail to teach:
“determining if the width of any PWM pulse is scheduled to be greater than the width of a respective sub-slot and sorting the PWM pulses by width into pairs upon positive determination thereof.”, as set forth in claim 4;
“determining if the width of a PWM pulse previously sorted into a lower-width pair exceeds the width of another PWM pulse previously sorted into a higher-width pair by more than a threshold and sorting the PWM pulses by width into pairs upon positive determination thereof.”, as set forth in claim 5;
“wherein the width of each sub-slot is varied upon the sorting the PWM pulses by width into pairs.”, as set forth in claim 8;
“wherein the width of each sub-slot is equal to the sum of i) the width of the widest PWM pulse in the sub-slot and ii) a portion of a spare slot width available in the time slot after summing the widths of the widest PWM pulses of the pairs.”, as set forth in claim 9;
“wherein a shortest sub-slot in which the shortest PWM pulse is applied and a longest sub-slot in which the longest PWM pulse is applied are scheduled adjacent to one another at the beginning or at the end of the time slot.”, as set forth in claim 16;
“determining the width of overlap of PWM pulses in each pair of PWM pulses, and increasing the duty and/or amplitude of overlapping PWM pulses in dependence on the width of overlap so as to compensate for electrical resistance in a common connection to the actuator components driven by the overlapping pulses, to thereby reduce the power reduction at the actuator components due to the electrical resistance in the common connection compared to a situation in which there is no compensation for electrical resistance in the common connection.”, as set forth in claim 18.
Conclusion
The prior art references made of record and not relied upon teach applying PWM drive signals to actuating wires of camera devices.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LEVI GANNON whose telephone number is (571)272-7971. The examiner can normally be reached 7:00AM-4:30PM.
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, Menatoallah Youssef can be reached at 571-270-3684. 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.
/LEVI GANNON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2849 December 29, 2025