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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/18/2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 12/18/2025 has been entered. Claims 3, 5, 25, and 27 have been canceled. Claims 1-2, 4, 6-16, 18-24, 26, and 28-40 remain pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/18/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding applicant’s arguments with respect to the 103 rejections, applicant’s arguments have been fully considered and are appreciated. However, the examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant argues that the currently applied prior art does not disclose the features “a first block mechanism is formed between the carrier auxiliary structure and the fixed base, and a second block mechanism is formed between the base auxiliary structure and the movable carrier” and “the carrier auxiliary structure, the base auxiliary structure and the main body of the plastic swing element are formed in one piece” as recited in amended independent claims 1 and 23.
As can be seen in Figs. 4 and 6 of Im, the carrier auxiliary structure, the base auxiliary structure, and the main body of the plastic swing element are formed in one piece. Further, it has been held that making in one piece an article which has formerly been formed in multiple pieces involves only routine skill in the art. In re Larson 144 USPQ 347, 349, (CCPA 1965).
Regarding applicant’s argument that Im does not disclose “a first block mechanism is formed between the carrier auxiliary structure and the fixed base, and a second block mechanism is formed between the base auxiliary structure and the movable carrier”, the examiner disagrees. Applicant argues that Im has stoppers between the fixed base and the movable carrier, which differs from the one piece formed plastic swing element of the instant application. However, the stoppers are fixed to the fixed base and can be considered part of the fixed base. The examiner notes again that it has been held that making in one piece an article which has formerly been formed in multiple pieces involves only routine skill in the art. In re Larson 144 USPQ 347, 349, (CCPA 1965). Additionally, ¶0097 of Im indicates that the stoppers are not necessary to the invention (even in the case that the stoppers 1050 are not provided”). Further, the existence of the stoppers does not prevent the block mechanism performed by the plastic swing element from occurring. Figs. 11-12 demonstrate the block mechanism between the carrier auxiliary structure and the fixed base as well as the block mechanism between the base auxiliary structure and the movable carrier.
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) 1-14 and 18-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Im et al. (US 20180224665 A1), hereinafter Im, in view of Lee (US 20220269146 A1), hereinafter Lee '146.
Regarding independent claim 1, Im discloses an image stabilization lens module comprising:
an optical lens assembly (1200; Fig. 4; ¶0084) comprising a plurality of optical lens elements (Fig. 3), and an optical axis (Fig. 3) passing through the plurality of optical lens elements (Fig. 3);
a lens holder (1220; Figs. 3, 4; ¶0132) holding the plurality of optical lens elements (Fig. 3) of the optical lens assembly (1200) (Figs. 3, 4);
a light-folding element (1110; Fig. 4; ¶0085) located on the optical axis (Figs. 3, 4; ¶0086) and folding the optical axis (Figs. 3, 4; ¶0086);
a movable carrier (1120; Fig. 4; ¶0095) carrying the light-folding element (1110) (Figs. 3, 4);
a fixed base (1010; Fig. 4; ¶0084) connected to the movable carrier (1120) via an elastic element (1050; Fig. 4; ¶0097);
a swing element (1130; Fig. 4; ¶0096) disposed between the movable carrier (1120) and the fixed base (1010) (¶0096), and the plastic swing element (1130) comprising:
a main body (1130; Figs. 4, 6) having a carrier corresponsive surface (Fig. 4) facing the movable carrier (1120) (Figs. 4, 6) and a base corresponsive surface (Figs. 4, 8) facing the fixed base (1010; Figs. 4, 8);
a carrier support structure (1133, 1134; Fig. 6; ¶0096) disposed on the carrier corresponsive surface (Fig. 6), and the carrier support structure (1133, 1134) supporting and being connected to the movable carrier (1120) (Figs. 4, 6);
a base support structure (1131, 1132; Figs. 4, 6; ¶0096) disposed on the base corresponsive surface (Figs. 4, 6), and the base support structure (1131, 1132) connected to the fixed base (1010) (Figs. 4, 6, 8), so that the fixed base supports the plastic swing element (1130) (Figs. 4, 6, 8);
a carrier auxiliary structure (Figs. 4, 6) disposed on the base corresponsive surface (Figs. 4, 6), and the carrier auxiliary structure disposed opposite to the carrier support structure (Figs. 4, 6); and
a base auxiliary structure (Fig. 6) disposed on the carrier corresponsive surface (Fig. 6), and the base auxiliary structure disposed opposite to the base support structure (Fig. 6); and
a driving mechanism (¶0098) configured to drive the movable carrier (1120) to rotate relative to the fixed base (1010) (Fig. 11);
wherein the light-folding element (1110) is located on an object side of the lens holder (1120) (Figs. 3, 4, 11);
wherein the carrier support structure (1133, 1134) is in physical contact with the movable carrier (1120) (Fig. 3), and the base support structure (1131, 1132) is in physical contact with the fixed base (1010) (Fig. 3);
wherein the carrier auxiliary structure (Figs. 4, 6), the base auxiliary structure (Figs. 4, 6) and the main body (Figs. 4, 6) of the swing element (1130) are formed in one piece (Figs. 4, 6); and
wherein the main body of the swing element further has an outer peripheral surface (outer edge; Figs. 4, 6), and the outer peripheral surface (outer edge; Fig. 4, 6) is connected to the carrier corresponsive surface (Fig. 6) and the base corresponsive surface (Figs. 4, 6); and
wherein a first block mechanism (Figs. 4, 6) is formed between the carrier auxiliary structure (Figs. 4, 6) and the fixed base (1010) (Figs. 4, 6), and a second block mechanism (Figs. 4, 6) is formed between the base auxiliary structure (Fig. 6) and the movable carrier (1120) (Fig. 6).
Im is silent on the material of the swing element; particularly Im does not disclose the swing element being made of plastic. Im further does not disclose the main body of the plastic swing element further has at least one gate trace, and the at least one gate trace is located only on one of the outer peripheral surface, the carrier corresponsive surface and the base corresponsive surface.
However, Lee ‘146 teaches a similar image stabilization module comprising a swing element (351) which may be formed of an injection material – which is a group of materials known to include plastic. Further, Lee ‘146 teaches the main body of the swing element further has at least one gate trace (implicit due to nature of injection molding – a gate trace would necessarily flow from injection molding)1, and the at least one gate trace is located only on one of the outer peripheral surface, the carrier corresponsive surface and the base corresponsive surface (implicit due to structure of a typical gate).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the swing element of Im to be made of an injection material such as plastic (which would necessarily result in a gate trace), since it is a known light and durable material which may be formed by a press method as taught by Lee ‘146.
Regarding claim 2, Im in view of Lee ‘146 discloses the image stabilization lens module of claim 1, wherein the carrier auxiliary structure (Figs. 4, 6) overlaps the carrier support structure (Figs. 3, 4, 6) in a direction parallel to a part of the optical axis on an image side of the light-folding element (1110) (Figs. 3, 4, 6).
Regarding claim 4, Im in view of Lee ‘146 discloses the image stabilization lens module of claim 2, wherein the base auxiliary structure (Figs. 4, 6) overlaps the base support structure (Figs. 3, 4, 6) in the direction parallel to the part of the optical axis on the image side of the light-folding element (1110) (Figs. 3, 4, 6).
Regarding claim 6, Im in view of Lee ‘146 discloses the image stabilization lens module of claim 4, wherein the carrier support structure (1133, 1134) consists of at least two balls (1133) and at least two conical recesses (1134), the at least two conical recesses (1134) are formed on the carrier corresponsive surface (Figs. 4, 6A), and the at least two balls (1131) are respectively in physical contact with the at least two conical recesses (1134) (Figs. 3, 6A; ¶0096).
Regarding claim 7, Im in view of Lee ‘146 discloses the image stabilization lens module of claim 6, wherein the base support structure (1131, 1132) consists of at least two balls (1131) and at least two conical recesses (1132), the at least two conical recesses (1132) are formed on the base corresponsive surface (Figs. 4, 6A), and the at least two balls (1131) are respectively in physical contact with the at least two conical recesses (1132) (Figs. 3, 4, 6A; ¶0096).
Regarding claim 8, Im in view of Lee ‘146 discloses the image stabilization lens module of claim 4, wherein the carrier support structure (1133, 1134) consists of at least one cylindrical protrusion (1133; Fig. 6B) or at least one cylindrical recess (1134; Fig. 6B).
Regarding claim 9, Im in view of Lee ‘146 discloses the image stabilization lens module of claim 8, wherein the base support structure (1131, 1132) consists of at least one cylindrical protrusion (1131) or at least one cylindrical recess (1132) (Fig. 6B).
Regarding claim 10, Im in view of Lee ‘146 discloses the image stabilization lens module of claim 4, wherein the carrier support structure (1133, 1134) has a first rotation axis (Fig. 12).
Regarding claim 11, Im in view of Lee ‘146 discloses the image stabilization lens module of claim 10, wherein the base support structure (1131, 1132) has a second rotation axis (Fig. 11).
Regarding claim 12, Im in view of Lee ‘146 discloses the image stabilization lens module of claim 11, wherein the movable carrier (1120) is rotatable relative to the fixed base (1010) in a first rotation direction around the first rotation axis (Fig. 12B) and rotatable relative to the fixed base (1010) in a direction opposite to the first rotation direction around the first rotation axis (Fig. 12C).
Regarding claim 13, Im in view of Lee ‘146 discloses the image stabilization lens module of claim 12, wherein the movable carrier (1120) is rotatable relative to the fixed base (1010) in a second rotation direction around the second rotation axis (Fig. 11B) and rotatable relative to the fixed base (1010) in a direction opposite to the second rotation direction around the second rotation axis (Fig. 11C).
Regarding claim 14, Im in view of Lee ‘146 discloses the image stabilization lens module of claim 11, wherein the first rotation axis (Fig. 12) is orthogonal to the second rotation axis (Fig. 11) (Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 18, Im in view of Lee ‘146 discloses the image stabilization lens module of claim 1, wherein the driving mechanism (¶0098) comprises at least one coil (1141b, 1143b, 1145b) and at least one magnet (1141a, 1143a, 1145a) disposed corresponding to each other, one of the at least one coil (1141b, 1143b, 1145b) and the at least one magnet (1141a, 1143a, 1145a) is disposed on the movable carrier (1120), and another of the at least one coil (1141b, 1143b, 1145b) and the at least one magnet (1141a, 1143a, 1145a) is directly or indirectly disposed on the fixed base (1010) (Fig. 4; ¶0098).
Regarding claim 19, Im in view of Lee ‘146 discloses the image stabilization lens module of claim 18, further comprising a flexible printed circuit board (1320; Fig. 4; ¶0087) attached to the fixed base (1010) (Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 21, Im in view of Lee ‘146 discloses a camera module (1001; Fig. 2; ¶0072) comprising: the image stabilization lens module (Figs. 3, 4) of claim 1; and an image sensor (1310; Fig. 4; ¶0087) disposed on an image surface of the optical lens assembly (1200) (Figs. 3, 4).
Regarding claim 22, Im in view of Lee ‘146 discloses an electronic device (1; Fig. 1; ¶0072) comprising: the camera module (1001) of claim 21 (Fig. 1; ¶0072).
Claim(s) 15-16 and 23-39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Im (US 20180224665 A1), in view of Lee ‘146 (US 20220269146 A1), and further in view of Lin et al. (US 20180095244 A1), hereinafter Lin.
Regarding claim 15, Im in view of Lee ‘146 discloses the image stabilization lens module of claim 1, wherein a maximum field of view of the optical lens assembly (1200) is FOV. Im and Lee ‘146 are silent on the FOV of the optical lens assembly (1200); particularly they do not disclose the FOV satisfies the following condition: 1 degree < FOV < 50 degrees.
However, Lin teaches a similar optical lens assembly to Im including four lenses (Fig. 22) and a prism (Fig. 22), which satisfies the condition 1 degree < FOV < 50 degrees (FOV = 27.6 degrees; Table 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the optical lens assembly disclosed by Im to have a FOV = 27.6 degrees for the purpose of finding an appropriate field of view for the lens assembly with respect to the image sensor. Further, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955).
Regarding claim 16, Im in view of Lee ‘146 discloses the image stabilization lens module of claim 1, wherein a maximum field of view of the optical lens assembly (1200) is FOV. Im and Lee ‘146 are silent on the FOV of the optical lens assembly (1200); particularly they do not disclose the FOV satisfies the following condition: 1 degree < FOV ≤ 35 degrees.
However, Lin teaches a similar optical lens assembly to Im including four lenses (Fig. 22) and a prism (Fig. 22), which satisfies the condition 1 degree < FOV ≤ 35 degrees (FOV = 27.6 degrees; Table 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the optical lens assembly disclosed by Im to have a FOV = 27.6 degrees for the purpose of finding an appropriate field of view for the lens assembly with respect to the image sensor. Further, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955).
Regarding independent claim 23, Im discloses an image stabilization lens module comprising:
an optical lens assembly (1200; Fig. 4; ¶0084) comprising a plurality of optical lens elements (Fig. 3), and an optical axis (Fig. 3) passing through the plurality of optical lens elements (Fig. 3);
a lens holder (1220; Figs. 3, 4; ¶0132) holding the plurality of optical lens elements (Fig. 3) of the optical lens assembly (1200) (Figs. 3, 4);
a light-folding element (1110; Fig. 4; ¶0085) located on the optical axis (Figs. 3, 4; ¶0086) and folding the optical axis (Figs. 3, 4; ¶0086);
a movable carrier (1120; Fig. 4; ¶0095) carrying the light-folding element (1110) (Figs. 3, 4);
a fixed base (1010; Fig. 4; ¶0084) connected to the movable carrier (1120) via an elastic element (1050; Fig. 4; ¶0097);
a swing element (1130; Fig. 4; ¶0096) disposed between the movable carrier (1120) and the fixed base (1010) (¶0096), and the plastic swing element (1130) comprising:
a main body (1130; Figs. 4, 6) having a carrier corresponsive surface (Fig. 4) facing the movable carrier (1120) (Figs. 4, 6) and a base corresponsive surface (Figs. 4, 8) facing the fixed base (1010; Figs. 4, 8);
a carrier support structure (1133, 1134; Fig. 6; ¶0096) disposed on the carrier corresponsive surface (Fig. 6), and the carrier support structure (1133, 1134) supporting and being connected to the movable carrier (1120) (Figs. 4, 6);
a base support structure (1131, 1132; Figs. 4, 6; ¶0096) disposed on the base corresponsive surface (Figs. 4, 6), and the base support structure (1131, 1132) connected to the fixed base (1010) (Figs. 4, 6, 8), so that the fixed base supports the plastic swing element (1130) (Figs. 4, 6, 8);
a carrier auxiliary structure (Figs. 4, 6) disposed on the base corresponsive surface (Figs. 4, 6), and the carrier auxiliary structure disposed opposite to the carrier support structure (Figs. 4, 6); and
a base auxiliary structure (Fig. 6) disposed on the carrier corresponsive surface (Fig. 6), and the base auxiliary structure disposed opposite to the base support structure (Fig. 6); and
a driving mechanism (¶0098) configured to drive the movable carrier (1120) to rotate relative to the fixed base (1010) (Fig. 11);
wherein the carrier support structure (1133, 1134) is in physical contact with the movable carrier (1120) (Fig. 3), and the base support structure (1131, 1132) is in physical contact with the fixed base (1010) (Fig. 3);
wherein the carrier auxiliary structure (Figs. 4, 6), the base auxiliary structure (Figs. 4, 6) and the main body (Figs. 4, 6) of the swing element (1130) are formed in one piece (Figs. 4, 6); and
wherein the main body of the swing element further has an outer peripheral surface (outer edge; Figs. 4, 6), and the outer peripheral surface (outer edge; Fig. 4, 6) is connected to the carrier corresponsive surface (Fig. 6) and the base corresponsive surface (Figs. 4, 6); and
wherein a first block mechanism (Figs. 4, 6) is formed between the carrier auxiliary structure (Figs. 4, 6) and the fixed base (1010) (Figs. 4, 6), and a second block mechanism (Figs. 4, 6) is formed between the base auxiliary structure (Fig. 6) and the movable carrier (1120) (Fig. 6).
Im is silent on the material of the swing element; particularly Im does not disclose the swing element being made of plastic. Im further does not disclose the main body of the plastic swing element further has at least one gate trace, and the at least one gate trace is located only on one of the outer peripheral surface, the carrier corresponsive surface and the base corresponsive surface. Im also fails to disclose the light-folding element (1110) is located on an image side of the lens holder (1120).
However, Lee ‘146 teaches a similar image stabilization module comprising a swing element (351) which may be formed of an injection material – which is a group of materials known to include plastic. Further, Lee ‘146 teaches the main body of the swing element further has at least one gate trace (implicit due to nature of injection molding – a gate trace would necessarily flow from injection molding), and the at least one gate trace is located only on one of the outer peripheral surface, the carrier corresponsive surface and the base corresponsive surface (implicit due to structure of a typical gate).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the swing element of Im to be made of an injection material such as plastic (which would necessarily result in a gate trace), since it is a known light and durable material which may be formed by a press method as taught by Lee ‘146.
Lee ‘146 also fails to disclose the light-folding element is located on an image side of the lens holder.
However, Lin teaches an optical lens assembly (Figs. 22-24) with a light-folding element (20”; Figs. 23-24; ¶0059) located on an image side of the lens assembly (Figs. 23-24; ¶0059).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Im to incorporate the teachings of Lin to include a light-folding element on the image side of the lens holder for the purpose of redirecting the light towards an image surface. It is noted that there are a finite number of identified, predictable potential solutions of where to place a light-folding element in order to redirect light. A person of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued these finite known potential solutions with a reasonable expectation of success. KSR International Co. v Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). See MPEP 2143. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose to place a light-folding element on the image side of the lens holder because it has been held that choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions with a reasonable expectation of success is within ordinary skill.
Regarding claim 24, Im in view of Lee ‘146 and further in view of Lin discloses the image stabilization lens module of claim 23. Im and Lee ‘146 fail to discloses the carrier auxiliary structure (Figs. 4, 6) overlaps the carrier support structure (Figs. 3, 4, 6) in a direction parallel to a part of the optical axis on an object side of the light-folding element (1110).
However, Lin teaches an optical lens assembly (Figs. 22-24) with a light-folding element (20”; Figs. 23-24; ¶0059) located on an image side of the lens assembly (Figs. 23-24; ¶0059), which would redirect the light such that the carrier auxiliary structure (Figs. 4, 6 of Im) would overlap the carrier support structure (Figs. 3, 4, 6 of Im) in a direction parallel to a part of the optical axis on an object side of the light-folding element (20” of Lin).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Im and Lee ‘146 to incorporate the teachings of Lin to include a light-folding element on the image side of the lens holder for the purpose of redirecting the light towards an image surface. It is noted that there are a finite number of identified, predictable potential solutions of where to place a light-folding element in order to redirect light. A person of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued these finite known potential solutions with a reasonable expectation of success. KSR International Co. v Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). See MPEP 2143. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose to place a light-folding element on the image side of the lens holder because it has been held that choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions with a reasonable expectation of success is within ordinary skill.
Regarding claim 26, Im in view of Lee ‘146 and further in view of Lin discloses the image stabilization lens module of claim 24. Im and Lee ‘146 fail to disclose the base auxiliary structure (Figs. 4, 6) overlaps the base support structure (Figs. 3, 4, 6) in the direction parallel to the part of the optical axis on the object side of the light-folding element (1110) (Figs. 3, 4, 6).
However, Lin teaches an optical lens assembly (Figs. 22-24) with a light-folding element (20”; Figs. 23-24; ¶0059) located on an image side of the lens assembly (Figs. 23-24; ¶0059), which would redirect the light such that the base auxiliary structure (Figs. 4, 6 of Im) would overlap the base support structure (Figs. 3, 4, 6 of Im) in a direction parallel to a part of the optical axis on an object side of the light-folding element (20” of Lin).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Im and Lee ‘146 to incorporate the teachings of Lin to include a light-folding element on the image side of the lens holder for the purpose of redirecting the light towards an image surface. It is noted that there are a finite number of identified, predictable potential solutions of where to place a light-folding element in order to redirect light. A person of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued these finite known potential solutions with a reasonable expectation of success. KSR International Co. v Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). See MPEP 2143. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose to place a light-folding element on the image side of the lens holder because it has been held that choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions with a reasonable expectation of success is within ordinary skill.
Regarding claim 28, Im in view of Lee ‘146 and further in view of Lin discloses the image stabilization lens module of claim 26, wherein the carrier support structure (1133, 1134) consists of at least two balls (1133) and at least two conical recesses (1134) (Figs. 3, 6A; ¶0096).
Regarding claim 29, Im in view of Lee ‘146 and further in view of Lin discloses the image stabilization lens module of claim 28, wherein the base support structure (1131, 1132) consists of at least two balls (1131) and at least two conical recesses (1132) (Figs. 3, 4, 6A; ¶0096).
Regarding claim 30, Im in view of Lee ‘146 and further in view of Lin discloses the image stabilization lens module of claim 67, wherein the carrier support structure (1133, 1134) has a first rotation axis (Fig. 12).
Regarding claim 31, Im in view of Lee ‘146 and further in view of Lin discloses the image stabilization lens module of claim 30, wherein the base support structure (1131, 1132) has a second rotation axis (Fig. 11).
Regarding claim 32, Im in view of Lee ‘146 and further in view of Lin discloses the image stabilization lens module of claim 31, wherein the movable carrier (1120) is rotatable relative to the fixed base (1010) in a first rotation direction around the first rotation axis (Fig. 12B) and rotatable relative to the fixed base (1010) in a direction opposite to the first rotation direction around the first rotation axis (Fig. 12C).
Regarding claim 33, Im in view of Lee ‘146 and further in view of Lin discloses the image stabilization lens module of claim 32, wherein the movable carrier (1120) is rotatable relative to the fixed base (1010) in a second rotation direction around the second rotation axis (Fig. 11B) and rotatable relative to the fixed base (1010) in a direction opposite to the second rotation direction around the second rotation axis (Fig. 11C).
Regarding claim 34, Im in view of Lee ‘146 and further in view of Lin discloses the image stabilization lens module of claim 31, wherein the first rotation axis (Fig. 12) is orthogonal to the second rotation axis (Fig. 11) (Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 35, Im in view of Lee ‘146 and further in view of Lin discloses the image stabilization lens module of claim 23, wherein light in the light-folding element (1110) undergoes at least one total internal reflection (inherent from Figs. 3A, 4).
Regarding claim 36, Im in view of Lee ‘146 and further in view of Lin discloses the image stabilization lens module of claim 23, wherein a maximum field of view of the optical lens assembly (1200) is FOV. Im and Lee ‘146 are silent on the FOV of the optical lens assembly (1200); particularly Im and Lee ‘146 do not disclose the FOV satisfies the following condition: 1 degree < FOV < 50 degrees.
However, Lin teaches a similar optical lens assembly to Im including four lenses (Fig. 22) and a prism (Fig. 22), which satisfies the condition 1 degree < FOV < 50 degrees (FOV = 27.6 degrees; Table 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the optical lens assembly disclosed by Im and Lee ‘146 to have a FOV = 27.6 degrees for the purpose of finding an appropriate field of view for the lens assembly with respect to the image sensor. Further, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955).
Regarding claim 37, Im in view of Lee ‘146 and further in view of Lin discloses the image stabilization lens module of claim 36, wherein a maximum field of view of the optical lens assembly (1200) is FOV. Im and Lee ‘146 are silent on the FOV of the optical lens assembly (1200); particularly Im and Lee ‘146 do not disclose the FOV satisfies the following condition: 1 degree < FOV ≤ 35 degrees.
However, Lin teaches a similar optical lens assembly to Im including four lenses (Fig. 22) and a prism (Fig. 22), which satisfies the condition 1 degree < FOV ≤ 35 degrees (FOV = 27.6 degrees; Table 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the optical lens assembly disclosed by Im and Lee ‘146 to have a FOV = 27.6 degrees for the purpose of finding an appropriate field of view for the lens assembly with respect to the image sensor. Further, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955).
Regarding claim 38, Im in view of Lee ‘146 and further in view of Lin discloses the image stabilization lens module of claim 23, wherein the driving mechanism (¶0098) comprises at least one coil (1141b, 1143b, 1145b) and at least one magnet (1141a, 1143a, 1145a) disposed corresponding to each other, one of the at least one coil (1141b, 1143b, 1145b) and the at least one magnet (1141a, 1143a, 1145a) is disposed on the movable carrier (1120), and another of the at least one coil (1141b, 1143b, 1145b) and the at least one magnet (1141a, 1143a, 1145a) is directly or indirectly disposed on the fixed base (1010) (Fig. 4; ¶0098).
Regarding claim 39, Im in view of Lee ‘146 and further in view of Lin discloses the image stabilization lens module of claim 38, further comprising a flexible printed circuit board (1320; Fig. 4; ¶0087) attached to the fixed base (1010) (Fig. 4).
Claim(s) 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Im (US 20180224665 A1), in view of Lee ‘146 (US 20220269146 A1), and further in view of Lee (US 20220326510 A1), hereinafter Lee '510.
Regarding claim 20, Im in view of Lee ‘146 discloses the image stabilization lens module of claim 19, wherein the at least one magnet (1141a, 1143a, 1145a) is disposed on the movable carrier (1120) (Fig. 4). Neither Im nor Lee ‘146 disclose the at least one coil is disposed on the flexible printed circuit board. Im instead discloses the at least one coil (1141b, 1143b, 1145b) is disposed on a main board (1070; Fig. 4; ¶0099).
However, Lee ‘510 teaches a similar image stabilization lens module with coils (710, 720, 730; Figs. 2, 12; ¶0062) disposed on a substrate (600; Fig. 2) which comprises a flexible printed circuit board (¶0067).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Im and Lee ‘146 to incorporate the teachings of Lee ‘510 to make the main board on which the coils are disposed a flexible printed circuit board for the purpose of supplying power to the coils making up the driving unit and for the purpose of making the board less likely to break as a result of vibrations.
Claim(s) 40 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Im (US 20180224665 A1) in view of Lee ‘146 (US 20220269146 A1), further in view of Lin (US 20180095244 A1), and further in view of Lee '510 (US 20220326510 A1).
Regarding claim 40, Im in view of Lee ‘146 and further in view of Lin discloses the image stabilization lens module of claim 39, wherein the at least one magnet (1141a, 1143a, 1145a) is disposed on the movable carrier (1120) (Fig. 4). Neither Im nor Lin disclose the at least one coil is disposed on the flexible printed circuit board. Im instead discloses the at least one coil (1141b, 1143b, 1145b) is disposed on a main board (1070; Fig. 4; ¶0099).
However, Lee ‘510 teaches a similar image stabilization lens module with coils (710, 720, 730; Figs. 2, 12; ¶0062) disposed on a substrate (600; Fig. 2) which comprises a flexible printed circuit board (¶0067).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Im, Lee ‘146, and Lin to incorporate the teachings of Lee ‘510 to make the main board on which the coils are disposed a flexible printed circuit board for the purpose of supplying power to the coils making up the driving unit and for the purpose of making the board less likely to break as a result of vibrations.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATASHA NIGAM whose telephone number is (571)270-5423. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8-5.
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.
/NATASHA NIGAM/Examiner, Art Unit 2872 January 6th, 2026
/RICKY L MACK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872
1 The express, implicit, and inherent disclosures of a prior art reference may be relied upon in the rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C. 102 or 103. "The inherent teaching of a prior art reference, a question of fact, arises both in the context of anticipation and obviousness." In re Napier, 55 F.3d 610, 613, 34 USPQ2d 1782, 1784 (Fed. Cir. 1995), see MPEP 2112.