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 11 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 11 depends on claim 1. Therefore, the second subparagraph is redundant and is recommended to be removed.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 6-12, and 16-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over You et al. (EP 4254931).
Regarding claim 1:
You discloses a variable aperture, comprising a housing (FIG. 8, (321), [0072]), a rotary member ((322), [0074]) rotatably connected to the housing ([0074]), a driving member (FIG. 8, “…coil 3241a is fastened to the case 321…”, [0091]) fixedly connected to the housing ([0090-0100]) and a plurality of blades (FIGS. 12, 13, (323), [0077-0085]), wherein each of the plurality of blades is rotatably connected to the rotary member (FIGS. 12, 13, rotatable and slidable at (322b)/(3232a), [0084]) and is slidably connected to the housing (FIGS. 12, 13, rotatable and slidable at (321e)/(3231a), [0081]), the plurality of blades enclose to form an aperture hole (FIG. 13, (32a), [0069, 0077]) with an adjustable bore diameter (FIG. 13, (d1), [0087]), a guide groove (FIG. 12, (3232a), [0084]) is disposed on one of each of the plurality of blades and the housing, the other of each of the plurality of blades and the housing is connected to a guide column (FIGS. 9, 13, (322b) is connected/joined/linked to (321), [0084, 0085]), the guide column is inserted into the guide groove (FIG. 13, [0084]), an outer diameter of the guide column is not less than a groove width of the guide groove (“…diameter of the sliding column 322b is lightly greater than a width of the guide hole 3232a…”, [0085]).
You does not specifically disclose that the guide column has elasticity.
Since You discloses utilizing various materials such as metal, plastic, and soft elastic materials such as rubber and silica gel for various structures of the device ([0072, 0116, 0170, 0172, 0191]; “…soft elastic material is used for buffering…” to increase service life, [0172]), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to enable the guide column to have elasticity, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding claim 2:
You further discloses the variable aperture according to claim 1, wherein the guide column is in a cylindrical shape or is in a circular shape (FIG. 9).
Regarding claim 6:
You further discloses the variable aperture according to claim 1, wherein each of the plurality of blades is rotatably connected to the rotary member via a rotating shaft (FIG. 13, in conjunction with (321e), [0081]), and a second deformation groove (FIG. 12, (3232b), [0085]) is further disposed on each of the plurality of blades and the second deformation groove is located on a side of the guide groove facing away from the rotating shaft or a side of the guide groove facing the rotating shaft (FIG. 12); and a second elastic rib is formed between the second deformation groove and the guide groove (“…second elastic rib…”, [0085]).
Regarding claim 7:
You further discloses the variable aperture according to claim 6, wherein the second deformation groove is located on the side of the guide groove facing the rotating shaft (FIG. 12).
You does not specifically disclose that a third deformation groove is further disposed on each of the plurality of blades.
Since You already discloses the “elastic hole” (3232b) and the “second elastic rib” improve fitting tightness between the “sliding column” (322b) and the “guide hole” (3232a) ([0085]), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to enable a third deformation groove to be disposed on each of the plurality of blades, and the third deformation groove to be located on the side of the guide groove facing away from the rotating shaft; and a third elastic rib to be formed between the third deformation groove and the guide groove, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8; and to further improve the fitting tightness (You: [0085]) in a symmetrical manner from both sides.
Regarding claim 8:
You further discloses the variable aperture according to claim 7, wherein when the third deformation groove is provided to be located on the side of the guide groove facing away from the rotating shaft as explained in claim 7 above, a width of the second elastic rib would be equal to a width of the third elastic rib when these essential working parts are duplicated for the purpose of further improving the fitting tightness (You: [0085]) in a symmetrical manner from both sides.
Regarding claim 9:
You further discloses the variable aperture according to claim 7, wherein when the essential working parts are duplicated as explained in claim 7: each of the third deformation groove and the guide groove is in an arc shape (FIG. 12, duplication of (3232b), (3232a)), the second deformation groove is in an arc shape or in a circular shape (FIG. 12, (3232b)), and circle centers of the guide groove, the second deformation groove and the third deformation groove coincide with each other (FIG. 12, wherein the circle centers of (3232a) and (3232b) would coincide, and would also coincide the circle center of the duplication of (3232b) on the opposite side of (3232a)).
Regarding claim 10:
Claim 10 is similarly rejected as in claim 6 above.
Regarding claim 11:
You further discloses a camera module, comprising an optical lens (FIG. 5, (31), [0064-0068]), a motor (FIG. 5, (33), [0055,0062]) and the variable aperture (FIG. 5, (32), [0069-0071]) according to claim 1, wherein the variable aperture is disposed on a light incident side of the optical lens (FIG. 5), a relative position between the variable aperture and the optical lens is fixed (]0069]), and the motor is drivingly connected to the optical lens and is configured to drive the optical lens to move along a centerline direction of the optical lens ([0055, 0061]).
Regarding claims 12 and 16-20:
Claims 12 and 16-20 are similarly rejected as claims 2 and 6-10 above.
Claim(s) 3-5 and 13-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over You et al. (EP 4254931) as applied to claims 1, 2, 6-12, and 16-20 above, and further in view of Nakajima (JP 2014-126775).
Regarding claim 3:
You discloses the variable aperture according to claim 1.
You does not specifically disclose that the guide column comprises a plurality of first elastic ribs arranged in a circle.
Nakajima teaches a light amount adjustment device, wherein the guide column comprises a plurality of first elastic ribs arranged in a circle (FIGS. 14a-14c, (22’), [0065, 0066]), any two adjacent first elastic ribs among the plurality of first elastic ribs are disposed at intervals (FIGS. 14a-14c), and each of the plurality of first elastic ribs passes through the guide groove (passes through (13”), [0065, 0066]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the feature of Nakajima’s with the variable aperture taught by You for the purpose of relieving stress in the structure (Nakajima: [0065, 0066]).
Regarding claim 4:
You and Nakajima disclose and teach of the variable aperture according to claim 3, wherein Nakajima further discloses each of the plurality of first elastic ribs is in an arc shape and has an inner sidewall and an outer sidewall (FIG. 14b), and along a groove width direction of the guide groove, the guide groove has a first groove wall and a second groove wall that are disposed at intervals (indicated below); and the first groove wall abuts against and tangentially fits with an outer sidewall of one of the plurality of first elastic ribs, and the second groove wall abuts against and tangentially fits with an outer sidewall of another first elastic rib among the plurality of first elastic ribs (indicated below).
PNG
media_image1.png
492
365
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 5:
You and Nakajima disclose and teach of the variable aperture according to claim 3, wherein together You and Nakajima further discloses: each of the plurality of first elastic ribs is made of a plastic material (Nakajima: FIGS. 14a-14c, (22’), [0065, 0066]; You: utilizing various materials such as metal, plastic, and soft elastic materials such as rubber and silica gel for various structures of the device, [0072, 0116, 0170, 0172, 0191], “…soft elastic material is used for buffering…” to increase service life, [0172]).
Regarding claims 13-15:
Claims 13-15 are similarly rejected as claims 3-5 above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FANG-CHI CHANG whose telephone number is (571)270-5299. The examiner can normally be reached MRF 9am-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, STEPHANIE BLOSS can be reached at 5712723555. 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.
/FANG-CHI CHANG/Examiner, Art Unit 2852
/STEPHANIE E BLOSS/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2852
Prosecution Insights