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 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, 8 – 10, 13, 15 – 17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Shimizu (US 5,589,906).
Regarding claim 1, Shimizu discloses a camera (see description column 1, l. 6), comprising: an optical assembly having one or more lenses (see Fig. 4); an image sensor (see description column 1, l. 7), wherein the variable aperture assembly (see Fig. 5 (8)) configured to be positioned along a light path that extends from an object side of one or more lenses of an optical assembly of a camera and to an image sensor of the camera (see Fig. 4 (8)), wherein the variable aperture assembly comprises: a rotor (see Fig. 5 (82)); a stator (see Fig. 6 (81)); an actuator configured to rotate the rotor relative to the stator (see Fig. 5 (85)); and a flexible membrane attached to both the rotor and the stator (see Fig. 6 (83)), wherein the flexible membrane is configured to vary a diameter of an aperture formed by the flexible membrane on the light path when the rotor rotates relative to the stator (see Fig. 9 (a-c) and Fig. 10 (a-c)).
Regarding claim 8, Shimizu discloses the limitations of claim 1. Shimizu also teaches wherein the flexible membrane is configured to vary the diameter of the aperture between a fully open position and a fully closed position (fig. 10 (a-c)).
Regarding claim 9, Shimizu discloses the limitations of claim 1. Shimizu also teaches wherein the flexible membrane is configured to vary the diameter of the aperture between a fully open position and one or more partially closed positions (fig. 10 (a-c)).
Regarding claim 10, Shimizu discloses the limitations of claim 1. Shimizu also teaches wherein the flexible membrane is a single flexible membrane that is attached to both the rotor and the stator, and wherein the single flexible membrane is configured to vary the diameter of the aperture when the rotor rotates relative to the stator (fig. 10 (a-c)).
Claims 13 and 15 – 17 are rejected for the same reasons as claims 1 and 8 – 10, supra.
Claim 20 rejected for the same reasons as claims 1, supra. Shimizu also teaches the added limitations of a display; a camera; one or more processors; and memory storing program instructions executable by the one or more processors to cause images captured by the camera to be displayed on the display (c.1, ll.7).
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) 2 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimizu in view of Yoneyama (WO 2023/039776).
Regarding claim 2, Shimizu discloses the limitations of claim 1. Shimizu fails to explicitly disclose wherein the actuator comprises a voice coil motor (VCM) actuator configured to cause the rotor to rotate relative to the stator and cause the flexible membrane to vary the diameter of the aperture, wherein the VCM actuator comprises a plurality of coils and a plurality of magnets, wherein the plurality of coils and the plurality of magnets are positioned radially around the light path and radially aligned along the light path.
In a similar field of endeavor, Yoneyama teaches a variable aperture device sing a VCM as an actuator to rotate the rotor comprising a plurality of coils and magnets (Fig. 1 (6) and (10), [0009] and [0098]-[0099])). In light of the teaching of Yoneyama, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use Yoneyama’s teaching in Shimizu’s system because an artisan of ordinarily skill would recognize that this would result in reducing the load on the VCM for AF.
Claims 14 rejected for the same reasons as claims 2, supra.
Claim(s) 3 – 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimizu in view of Yoneyama in view of Hirata (JPS61247259).
Regarding claim 3, Shimizu in view of Yoneyama discloses the limitations of claim 2. The combination fails to explicitly disclose wherein some coils of the plurality of coils are of a first phase, and wherein remaining coils of the plurality of coils are of a second phase.
In a similar field of endeavor, Hirata teaches use of a plurality of coils with different phases (Fig. 1(d) 51-53, Fig. 5 and description). In light of the teaching of Hirata, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use Hirata’s teaching in Shimizu’s system because an artisan of ordinarily skill would recognize that this would result in smoother rotation of the stator and rotor.
Regarding claim 4, Shimizu in view of Yoneyama discloses the limitations of claim 2. The combination fails to explicitly disclose wherein a first set of coils of the plurality of coils are of a first phase, wherein a second set of coils of the plurality of coils are of a second phase, and wherein a third set of coils of the plurality of coils are of a third phase.
In a similar field of endeavor, Hirata teaches use of a plurality of coils with different phases (Fig. 1(d) 51-53, Fig. 5 and description). In light of the teaching of Hirata, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use Hirata’s teaching in Shimizu’s system because an artisan of ordinarily skill would recognize that this would result in smoother rotation of the stator and rotor.
Claim(s) 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimizu in view of Hirata (JPS61247259).
Regarding claim 5, Shimizu discloses the limitations of claim 2. The combination fails to explicitly disclose wherein the actuator comprises a voice coil motor (VCM) actuator configured to cause the rotor to rotate relative to the stator and cause the flexible membrane to vary the diameter of the aperture, wherein the VCM comprises a plurality of coils and a plurality of magnets, wherein the plurality of coils and the plurality of magnets are positioned radially around the light path, and wherein the plurality of coils and the plurality of magnets are located at different positions along the light path.
In a similar field of endeavor, Hirata teaches Coils and magnets located at different positions along the light path is obvious in the light (Fig. 1(d) 51-53, Fig. 5 and description). In light of the teaching of Hirata, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use Hirata’s teaching in Shimizu’s system because an artisan of ordinarily skill would recognize that this would result in smoother rotation of the stator and rotor.
Claim(s) 6 – 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimizu in view of Hirata (JPS61247259) in view of Lai (US 2011/0110800).
Regarding claim 6, Shimizu in view of Hirata discloses the limitations of claim 5. The combination fails to explicitly disclose wherein the plurality of coils comprises two coils, wherein each of the two coils comprise an undulating configuration that extends around the light path, and wherein the undulating configuration of a first coil of the two coils is off-set from the undulating configuration of a second coil of the two coils.
In a similar field of endeavor, Lai teaches the use of an undulating configuration of two coils with an offset (see Fig. 3A, 3B and [0063]). In light of the teaching of Lai, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use Lai’s teaching in Shimizu’s system because an artisan of ordinarily skill would recognize that this would result in promoting the operation efficiency.
Regarding claim 7, Shimizu in view of Hirata in view of Lai discloses the limitations of claim 6. Hirata also teaches further comprises a controller configured to modulate current flow through the two coils, wherein the controller is configured to alternate the supply of current between the first coil and the second coil at a frequency to cause the rotor to rotate relative to the stator and cause the flexible membrane to vary the diameter of the aperture (fig. 2, 5).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11 – 12 and 18 – 19 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.
Contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANTOINETTE 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
Prosecution Insights