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 8/25/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In particular, on page 9 of Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment, Applicant claims that at least part of flexible connector 10 of Naito must remain underneath the envelope of motion defined by the second part 3 at all times. To this, Examiner again references Figures 2 and 3 as well as paragraph 0035 of Naito’s specification – Figure 2 shows 3 and 9 attached to each other, as also stated in paragraph 0035, and Figure 3 shows the motion of 3. Since 9 is described in the specification and shown in Figure 2 as attached to 3, it would also move when 3 swings. Therefore, the lower corners of 9 define the lowest envelope of motion for the movement of 3 and 9. In the mapping, the second part is defined as the combination of 9 and 3, not just by 3. Therefore, since flexible connector 10 connects to the center of 9, it will always remain at least partly above the lowest envelope of motion of 9 and 3 it is attached to the center of 9. Since it attaches at the center of 9, 10 does not occupy corner regions of the second part which is defined as the lower corners of 9 that define the lowest envelope of motion for 3 and 9.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) filed on 3/4/2026 have been acknowledged and considered by the examiner. Initialed copies of supplied IDS(s) forms are included in this correspondence.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the rectangular region spanning the second part of claim 47 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-3, 6-7, 10, 47-48 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, claim states the limitation “ the flexible connector does not occupy corner regions of the second part” in the last two lines of the claim. This limitation is unclear because what is defined as “occupying a corner region” is not specified. How large is the corner region – is it just the exact corner which defines the lowest point of the envelope of motion, or is it some specific area encompassing the corner? Further, paragraph 0083 of the instant specification defines the flexible connector not occupying the corner regions of the second part as the flexible connector lying within a rectangular region spanning the second part, though what this rectangular region spanning the second part entails is also not specified in the specification nor shown in the figures. Due to these questions, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be apprised as to the scope of the invention (MPEP §2173.05(b)). For purposes of compact prosecution, examiner will interpret the corner region to be the lowermost corner point of the second part which defines the lowest point of the envelope of motion for the second part.
Regarding claim 47, claim recites the limitation “the flexible connector lies within a rectangular region spanning the second part” in the second line of the claim. This limitation is unclear because what exactly the “rectangular region” is or how it “spans the second part” are neither defined by the specification nor shown in the figures. What is this rectangular region, what does it encompass, how does it span the second part? Is it the second part, is it the area in which the second part is disposed, is it the area in which the second part moves, or is there some other definition for what this region is? Due to the questions surrounding this limitation, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be apprised as to the scope of the invention (MPEP §2173.05(b)). For purposes of compact prosecution, examiner will interpret the rectangular region to be any region that spans the second part.
Also, claims 2-3, 6-7, 10, 47-48 are rejected by virtue of their dependency.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-3, 6, 10, 47-48 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Naito et. al US 20130156412 (hereinafter “Naito”) of record.
Regarding claim 1, Naito teaches a camera assembly comprising:
a first part (Naito fig. 2 - 14);
a second part (Naito fig. 1-2 – 3 and 9, see also para. 0033-0035) tiltable with respect to the first part (Naito para. 0037), the second part (3, 9) including an image sensor (Naito para. 0032-0033 – 3 is provided with an imaging element) and a lens system (Naito para. 0032 – 3 is provided with a lens), wherein the lens system is above the image sensor with respect to a primary axis (Naito fig. 2 - L) passing through the image sensor (Naito fig. 2 – L passes through 3 and 9, on which the imaging element is disposed, see para. 0035);
a drive system (Naito fig. 2 – 5 including 18 and 19, see also para. 0038-0039) configured, in response to drive signals, to cause tilting of the second part (3, 9) with respect to the first part (14), wherein the tilting is about first and/or second axes which are not parallel and which are perpendicular to the primary axis (Naito para. 0039 – the swing operation is performed in the left and right direction by 18 and 19); and
one or more flexible connectors (Naito fig. 2 - 10) operatively connected to the second part (Naito fig. 2 – 10 connects to 9 which is attached to 3, see also para. 0035), wherein the one or more flexible connectors (10) are routed to pass between the second part (3, 9) and the first part (14; Naito fig. 2 – 10 lies between 9 and 14 below 3 which has the imaging element, see also para. 0035) below the image sensor (Naito para. 0035 - imaging element of 3 disposed on 9) with respect to the primary axis (L, Naito figs. 2-3 – shows 10 between 9 and 14 below 3 which has the imaging element, see also para. 0035);
wherein each flexible connector (10) is routed so as to pass, with respect to the primary axis (L), at least partly above one or more lowest points of an envelope of motion of the second part (3, 9) relative to the first part (14; Naito fig. 3 below demonstrates the swing motion of 3 – since 9 is attached to 3 as stated in para. 0035 and shown in fig. 2 provided below fig. 3, 9 would swing with 3, thus the bottom corner of 9 now defines the lowest point of an envelope of motion, which 10 is above as shown in fig. 2 – 10 connects to the center of 9, putting it above the lowest points of an envelope of motion, see also para. 0035-0037); and
PNG
media_image1.png
292
656
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
496
864
media_image2.png
Greyscale
wherein the one or more lowest points of the envelope of motion of the second part (3, 9) are at one or more corners thereof (Naito fig. 2 – 9 is attached to 3 as stated in para. 0035, so the motion shown in fig. 3 would also apply to 9, therefore the lower corners of 9 define the lowest envelope of motion for 3 and 9), and wherein, when viewed along the primary axis, the flexible connector (10) does not occupy corner regions of the second part (Naito fig. 2 – 10 connects to the center of 9 and does not occupy corner regions of 9 or 3).
Regarding claim 2, Naito teaches the camera assembly of claim 1, and Naito further teaches wherein a neutral axis of each flexible connector (10) passes through, or proximate to, the first axis and/or the second axis (see annotated Naito fig. 2 below – the labeled neutral axis is also the first axis).
PNG
media_image3.png
465
793
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, Naito teaches the camera assembly of claim 1, and Naito further teaches wherein, for at least a portion of each flexible connector (10), the normal(s) to a major surface of the flexible connector (10) are at an acute angle to the primary axis (L, see annotated Naito fig. 2 below, shows a normal to a major surface of the flexible connector forming an acute angle with L); and/or
PNG
media_image4.png
571
843
media_image4.png
Greyscale
wherein, for at least a portion of each flexible connector, the flexible connector does not include a fold in which a normal to a major surface thereof is perpendicular to the primary axis; and
optionally, wherein the portion corresponds to the portion of the flexible connector in which the major surfaces thereof are not attached to any other part of the camera assembly.
Regarding claim 6, Naito teaches the camera assembly of claim 1, and Naito further teaches wherein the second part (3, 9) comprises a first face (Naito fig. 2 – side of 9 which the imaging element of 3 connects to, see also para. 0035) and a second face (Naito fig. 2 – side of 9 which faces 11) opposite to the first face (Naito fig. 2), and wherein the image sensor is on the first face (Naito para. 0035);
wherein each flexible connector (10) extends from the second part (3, 9) in a first direction (Naito fig. 2 – 10 extends from 9 along X) and curves around to span across the second face in a second direction which is substantially opposite to the first direction (Naito fig. 2 – 10 extends from 9 along X moving toward the provided axis, then curves around to span across the second face as indicated in the annotated fig. below in a direction opposite to the labeled X direction).
PNG
media_image5.png
537
778
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 10, Naito teaches the camera assembly of claim 1, and Naito further teaches wherein each flexible connector (10) is connected to the first part (14) at a position outside the lateral extent of the second part (3, 9) when viewed along the primary axis (Naito fig. 2 – 10 connects to 14, 14b at a position outside the outer edges of the second part when viewed along the L axis); and/or wherein the lens system further comprises:
a lens carriage (Naito para. 0011 – 3 has at least one lens within it);
a lens arrangement comprising at least one lens (Naito abstract and para. 0011 – 3 has at least one lens); and
an autofocussing system (Naito para. 0034 – 3 may include a lens drive mechanism for autofocusing) mechanically coupling the lens arrangement and the lens carriages to move the lens arrangement relative to the sensor (Naito para. 0034 – the autofocusing drive mechanism would be located in 3 as described, therefore would be mechanically coupled to anything within 3).
Regarding claim 47, Naito teaches the camera assembly of claim 1, and Naito further teaches wherein when viewed along the primary axis, the flexible connector (10) lies within a rectangular region spanning the second part (see annotated Naito fig. 2 below).
PNG
media_image6.png
463
830
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 48, Naito teaches the camera assembly of claim 1, and Naito further teaches wherein the second part (3, 9) is rectangular (Naito fig. 2 – the combination of 3 and 9 is rectangular).
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 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Naito as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Howarth et. al US Patent 9,609,219 (hereinafter “Howarth”).
Regarding claim 7, Naito teaches the camera assembly of claim 1, and Naito further teaches comprising a plurality of flexure arms (Naito fig. 2 – 6 on either side of 3, see also para. 0032) and the flexible connector (10).
Naito does not teach each flexure arm providing or supporting at least one of the one or more flexible connectors.
In the same field of endeavor, Howarth teaches each flexure arm (Howarth fig. 2 – 51, 61) providing or supporting at least one of the one or more flexible connectors (Howarth fig. 2 – 51, 61 support 80, see also col. 8 lines 26-36) for the purpose of moving the camera lens relative to the support structure (Howarth col. 8 lines 32-36). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have each flexure arm providing or supporting at least one of the one or more flexible connectors as taught by Howarth in the camera assembly of Naito in order to move the camera lens relative to the support structure (Howarth col. 8 lines 32-36).
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 ELIZABETH M HALL whose telephone number is (703)756-5795. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9-5:30 pm PST.
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, Ricky Mack can be reached at (571)272-2333. 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.
/ELIZABETH M HALL/Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/RICKY L MACK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872