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 6 July 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 25, Applicant argues that the claim is allowable because Fukai fails to disclose "dynamically adjust a pushing force of the motor to maintain a size of the aperture to avoid aperture jitter caused by the drive chip changing from the first drive voltage to the second drive voltage" (page 9 of Remarks), however, this claim as amended is not supported by the specification as filed.
Claim 25 claims a motor which moves “the lens to the first position” and moves “the lens to the second position” in addition to the amended limitation which claims “dynamically adjust a pushing force of the motor to maintain a size of the aperture”. This combination of limitations is not supported by the specification as filed. The specification as filed discloses two different motors, the first motor is used to drive the lens as shown in Applicant’s figure 4 step S105. The second motor is used to adjust the aperture blade as shown in figure 7 step S212. The specification as filed makes no mention of dynamically adjust a pushing force of the motor (which is used to drive the lens as required by the limitation “drive the motor to move the lens” in line 8) to maintain a size of the aperture”.
Therefore, claim 25 and its dependent claims 26-32 are directed to new matter.
Claim 44 is a method variant of claim 25 and is similarly directed to new matter.
In view of the foregoing, claims 25-32 and 44 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112a as being directed to new matter as further detailed below.
Regarding claim 33, Applicant argues that the claim is allowable because the prior art fails to teach or suggest “dynamically adjust a pushing force of the motor to maintain the diameter size of the aperture to avoid aperture jitter caused by adjusting from the first drive voltage to the second drive voltage” in combination with the other elements of the claim. However, the Examiner is not persuaded.
Claim 39 was rejected over Junichi in view of Sugita.
Sugita teaches dynamically adjust a pushing force of the motor to maintain the diameter size of the aperture (figure 6 shows dynamically adjusting the voltage from V1 to V2 to maintain the size of the aperture as disclosed at paragraph 78) while the limitation “to avoid aperture jitter caused by adjusting from the first drive voltage to the second drive voltage” is an intended use of the action of dynamically adjusting the pushing force of the motor. In response to applicant's argument that the voltage adjustment is to “to avoid aperture jitter caused by adjusting from the first drive voltage to the second drive voltage”, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
In view of the foregoing the combination of Junichi in view of Sugita as further detailed in the rejection below.
Applicant argues that claims 34-43 are allowable due to their dependence on claim 33. In view of claim 33 standing rejected for the reasons discussed above, claims 34-43 similarly stand rejected as further detailed below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 25-32 and 44 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 25 claims a motor which moves “the lens to the first position” and moves “the lens to the second position” in addition to the amended limitation which claims “dynamically adjust a pushing force of the motor to maintain a size of the aperture”. This combination of limitations is not supported by the specification as filed. The specification as filed discloses two different motors, the first motor is used to drive the lens as shown in Applicant’s figure 4 step S105. The second motor is used to adjust the aperture blade as shown in figure 7 step S212. The specification as filed makes no mention of dynamically adjust a pushing force of the motor (which is used to drive the lens as required by the limitation “drive the motor to move the lens” in line 8) to maintain a size of the aperture”.
Therefore, claim 25 and its dependent claims 26-32 are directed to new matter.
Claim 44 is a method variant of claim 25 and is similarly directed to new matter.
In view of the foregoing, claims 25-32 and 44 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as being directed to new matter.
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.
Claims 33, 34 and 38-41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Junichi (Japanese Patent Publication 2017-161662) in view of Sugita et al. (United States Patent Application Publication 2008/0074965), hereinafter referenced as Sugita. Note that all text citations for Junichi refer to the machine translation attached to the prior Office Action.
Regarding claim 33, Junichi discloses an electronic device comprising: a camera (figure 1 exhibits a camera 100 as disclosed at paragraph 14) comprising an aperture (figure 1 exhibits aperture 104 as disclosed at paragraph 14), a motor (paragraph 9 discloses a motor), and a driver chip (figure 1 exhibits aperture control 105 as disclosed at paragraph 15), a memory (figure 1 exhibits memory 116 as disclosed at paragraph 16), one or more processors (figure 1 exhibits control unit 101 as disclosed at paragraph 14), and one or more programs (paragraph 44 discloses an operating program), wherein the one or more processors execute the one or more programs, the electronic device is configured to: start the camera to capture an image (paragraph 19 discloses starting image capturing in order to set an exposure amount); provide a first drive voltage for the driver chip, to drive the motor to change a diameter size of the aperture, for adjusting an f-number of the aperture to a first value (figure 3 shows that for any aperture sizes from intermediate position 1 to small, the drive voltage is set to 2V as disclosed at paragraph 24); and adjust the first drive voltage to a second drive voltage (figure 3 shows that when the aperture is adjusted to a position between intermediate 1 and intermediate 2, the voltage is 1.5V), wherein the first drive voltage is higher than the second drive voltage (figure 3 shows that as the aperture returns to a more open position, the voltage is decreased as disclosed at paragraph 24). However, Junichi fails to disclose dynamically adjust a pushing force of the motor to maintain the diameter size of the aperture to avoid aperture jitter caused by adjusting from the first drive voltage to the second drive voltage.
Sugita is a similar or analogous system to the claimed invention as evidenced Sugita teaches an imaging device wherein the motivation of minimizing power consumption and heat generation would have prompted a predictable variation of Junichi by applying Sugita’s known principal of providing, by the electronic device, dynamically adjust a pushing force of the motor to maintain the diameter size of the aperture to avoid aperture jitter caused by adjusting from the first drive voltage to the second drive voltage (figure 6 shows applying a voltage and therefore a current corresponding to V2 in order to maintain a size of the aperture as disclosed at paragraph 78, by maintaining the size of the aperture, jitter regardless of its cause is avoided).
In view of the motivations such as minimizing power consumption and heat generation one of ordinary skill in the art would have implemented the claimed variation of the prior art system of Junichi.
Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 34, Junichi in view of Sugita discloses the electronic device according to claim 33, in addition, Junichi discloses wherein the electronic device is configured to provide the first drive voltage for the driver chip by: adjusting a voltage provided for the driver chip from a third drive voltage to the first drive voltage, wherein the third drive voltage is lower than the first drive voltage (figure 3 shows that the voltage when the aperture is in the range of fully open to intermediate 1 is 1V which is less that then the 2V first voltage).
Regarding claim 38, Junichi in view of Sugita discloses the electronic device according to claim 33, in addition, Junichi discloses wherein the electronic device is configured to provide the first drive voltage for the driver chip, to drive the motor to change the diameter size of the aperture, for adjusting the f-number of the aperture to the first value by: providing the first drive voltage for the driver chip, and providing a third current for the motor by using the driver chip, to cause the motor to generate a first pushing force to change the diameter size of the aperture, for adjusting the f-number of the aperture to the first value (figure 3 shows that for any aperture sizes from intermediate position 1 to small, the drive voltage is set to 2V as disclosed at paragraph 24; it is apparent that when a voltage is provided it is provided with a current).
Regarding claim 39, Junichi discloses the electronic device according to claim 38, however, Junichi fails to disclose wherein after the adjusting the first drive voltage to a second drive voltage, the electronic device is configured to perform: providing, by the electronic device, a fourth current for the motor by using the driver chip, to cause the motor to keep a change in the diameter size of the aperture under an action of a second pushing force.
Sugita is a similar or analogous system to the claimed invention as evidenced Sugita teaches an imaging device wherein the motivation of minimizing power consumption and heat generation would have prompted a predictable variation of Junichi by applying Sugita’s known principal of providing, by the electronic device, a current for the motor by using the driver chip, to cause the motor to keep a change in the diameter size of the aperture under an action of a second pushing force (figure 6 shows applying a voltage and therefore a current corresponding to V2 in order to maintain a size of the aperture as disclosed at paragraph 78).
In view of the motivations such as minimizing power consumption and heat generation one of ordinary skill in the art would have implemented the claimed variation of the prior art system of Junichi.
Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 40, Junichi in view of Sugita discloses the electronic device according to claim 38, in addition, Junichi discloses wherein the first value is a maximum f-number or a minimum f-number of the aperture, or an f-number of the aperture when brightness of the image captured by the electronic device is equal to a threshold (figure 3 shows that the first aperture value which uses the highest voltage is the smallest aperture value).
Regarding claim 41, Junichi in view of Sugita discloses the electronic device according to claim 39, in addition, Sugita discloses wherein the electronic device pre-stores the third current and/or the fourth current (paragraph 37 discloses storing specifications for the motor).
Claims 35-37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Junichi in view of Sugita and further in view of Karibe et al. (United States Patent Application Publication 2018/0267388), hereinafter referenced as Karibe.
Regarding claim 35, Junichi in view of Sugita discloses the device according to claim 33, in addition, Junichi discloses wherein the electronic device is configured to provide the first drive voltage for the driver chip, to drive the motor to change the diameter size of the aperture, for adjusting an f-number of the aperture to the first value by: providing the first drive voltage for the driver chip, and providing one or more currents for the motor by using the driver chip, to drive the motor to adjust the diameter size of the aperture to a first size, for adjusting the f-number of the aperture to the first value, wherein the one or more currents comprise a first current (figure 3 shows applied voltages, it is apparent that if a voltage is applied to a motor there is also a current). However, Junichi fails to disclose a second current, and the second current is determined based on a diameter size of the aperture that is adjusted by the motor under an action of the first current.
Junichi discloses a method for driving a motor for which at least one current is used (figure 3 shows applied voltages, it is apparent that if a voltage is applied to a motor there is also a current). Karibe discloses a method for driving a motor for which two currents are used (figure 4 shows using two stators with offset currents as disclosed at paragraph 47). Because both Junichi and Karibe teach methods for driving a motor, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the two current driving taught by Karibe for the single current driving of Junichi to achieve the predictable result of properly setting an aperture for image capturing.
Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 36, Junichi in view of Sugita and further in view of Karibe discloses the device according to claim 35, however, Junichi fails to disclose wherein after the adjusting the first drive voltage to a second drive voltage, the electronic device is configured to perform: providing one or more currents for the motor by using the driver chip, to drive the motor to keep the diameter size of the aperture at the first size.
Sugita is a similar or analogous system to the claimed invention as evidenced Sugita teaches an imaging device wherein the motivation of minimizing power consumption and heat generation would have prompted a predictable variation of Junichi by applying Sugita’s known principal of providing, by the electronic device, a current for the motor by using the driver chip, to cause the motor to keep a change in the diameter size of the aperture under an action of a second pushing force (figure 6 shows applying a voltage and therefore a current corresponding to V2 in order to maintain a size of the aperture as disclosed at paragraph 78).
In view of the motivations such as minimizing power consumption and heat generation one of ordinary skill in the art would have implemented the claimed variation of the prior art system of Junichi.
Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 37, Junichi in view of Sugita and further in view of Karibe discloses the device according to claim 35, in addition, Junichi discloses wherein the first value is a f-number of the aperture other than a maximum f-number and a minimum f-number (figure 3 shows that the first f-value could be any aperture other than the maximum and minimum).
Claims 42 and 43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Junichi in view of Sugita and further in view of Nishimura (United States Patent Application Publication 2019/0215446).
Regarding claim 42, Junichi in view of Sugita discloses the electronic device according to claim 33, however, Junichi fails to disclose wherein the electronic device is configured to perform: detecting, by the electronic device, a second operation, wherein the second operation is used to indicate the first value.
Nishimura is a similar or analogous system to the claimed invention as evidenced Nishimura teaches an imaging device wherein the motivation of allowing a user to capture a desired image by changing image capturing settings would have prompted a predictable variation of Junichi by applying Nishimura’s known principal of detecting, by the electronic device, an operation, wherein the operation is used to indicate the first value (figure 6A exhibits button 62 which is used for setting an aperture value as disclosed at paragraph 71).
In view of the motivations such as allowing a user to capture a desired image by changing image capturing settings one of ordinary skill in the art would have implemented the claimed variation of the prior art system of Junichi.
Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 43, Junichi in view of Sugita discloses the electronic device according to claim 33, in addition, Junichi discloses wherein brightness and/or a depth of field of the image is different before and after the electronic device adjusts the f-number to the first value (it is apparent that when changing between aperture values at least the depth of field will be different, it is also clear that if other exposure settings are maintained and only the aperture is changed, then the brightness of an image captured before the change and a brightness of an image captured after the change will also be different). However, Junichi fails to disclose displaying the image captured by using the camera.
Nishimura is a similar or analogous system to the claimed invention as evidenced Nishimura teaches an imaging device wherein the motivation of allowing a user to view an image and decide if they would like to capture an image with updated settings would have prompted a predictable variation of Junichi by applying Nishimura’s known principal of displaying the image captured by using the camera (figure 6A exhibits display of a captured image 66aas disclosed at paragraph 70).
In view of the motivations such as allowing a user to view an image and decide if they would like to capture an image with updated settings one of ordinary skill in the art would have implemented the claimed variation of the prior art system of Junichi.
Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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 JASON A FLOHRE whose telephone number is (571)270-7238. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00-3:00.
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.
JASON A. FLOHRE
Patent Examiner
Art Unit 2637
/JASON A FLOHRE/Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2637
Prosecution Insights