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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
The amendment and the Request for continuing examination filed on 05/05/2026 have been entered. Claims 1-6, 8-13, 15-16 and 18-20 remain pending in the application. Claims 1, 2, 8 and 15 have been amended by the Applicant. Previous claim 2 rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph and under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, have been withdrawn in light of Applicant’s amendments to claim 2.
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
Drawings
The applicant’s drawings submitted are acceptable for examination purposes.
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 1-6, 8-13, 15-16 and 18-20 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.
Claims 1, 8 and 15 recite the limitation that “at least two flattening bends within each wire spring that creates a down force to maintain each wire spring disposed in a positive z-direction.” in last two line of each of the claims. However, this limitation is confusing because it is unclear how it can be treated.
Specifically, it is unclear how the wire with flattening bends can create a down force? A wire spring as any spring can be in extended (stretched) or compressed in its natural state given its configuration, and as such the spring structure comprises elastic potential energy (E=(1/2)kx2) that is stored i.e. created by specific spring structures. A force or down force is not created in the spring, but if the spring is compressed or extended from its natural state by an external force, then the springs exerts force in opposite direction as spring force F=-kx, given its structure represented in the spring constant k, and the displacement caused by the external force. Therefore it is unclear how can the wire spring create this down force? Is the down force along z-direction, and if so, then is the down force in the positive or negative z-direction? Moreover, it is unclear how can the downforce maintain each wire spring disposed in a positive z-direction? The wire spring is disposed in any z-direction, by simply being part aligned in space in some direction, e.g. optical axis direction. The specification describes that the wire springs have certain extension in z-direction in a free formed state (Fig. 8). The springs parts are then plastically deformed by clamping the center flat plate section (806 and 812a-d), and with another clamp can hold the 4 outer pads or feet (810a-d). The two clamps can move e.g. 6.4 mm relative to each other in the Z-direction. The spring arms can then plastically deform at the higher stress locations along their length which is based on spring design. The spring can then spring back a certain amount in the Z-direction and look like the springs as depicted in FIG. 11A (see Figs. 8, 11A,B. paragraphs [46-49, 54]), which allows the wire spring to have a spring force height 1106A depicted in Fig. 11A, prior to application of a preload force 1106B depicted in Fig. 11B, where the pre-load force can apply a down force (paragraphs [46-49, 54]). As understood from the specification the wire springs as a whole can be flattened in z-direction only by applied external force, e.g. down force or preload force, meaning that prior to applying the preload or down force the wire spring has a spring force height 11A06 that can be present between the foot portion 11A02 and the second end 11A04, which means that wire spring is disposed in vertical or e.g. a positive z-direction. After the preload force or down force is applied, the overall height of the spring can be less than 0.25 mm (see Figs. 8, 11A,B. paragraphs [46-49, 54]). The structural feature of the wire spring that extends in some direction before being compressed or pressed along the same direction is regarded as pre-load or pre-loading function. The above limitation will be treated broadly to the extent of the structure such that the wire springs are disposed in z-direction e.g. being aligned with direction e.g. optical axis, and can have flattening bends and the wire spring extends in some direction, e.g. z-direction, allowing the spring to have pre-loading function, such that as intrinsic property of springs, spring force is exerted in opposite direction to applied external force e.g. preload or down force. It is suggested to amend the claims and provide explanations if different meanings are sought and in order to remove the indefiniteness issues.
Claims 2-6 depend on claim 1 and therefore inherit the same deficiencies.
Claims 9-13 depend on claim 8 and therefore inherit the same deficiencies.
Claims 16 and 18-20 depend on claim 15 and therefore inherit the same deficiencies.
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.
Claims 1-6, 8-13, 15 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kim US 20200033699 A1 (of record).
In regard to independent claims 1, and 8, Kim teaches (see Figs. 1-8) a system, a camera actuation system (as camera module 100, with OIS module 400, AF module 300 see abstract, paragraphs [1, 8-36, 44-56, 58-67, 70-77,83-86], e.g. Figs. 1-4, 5-8) comprising:
a first actuator comprising a first set of base portions that are electrically isolated from one another, the autofocus actuator configured to actuate a lens in a z-direction (parts AF driver 330 of 300 on movable frame/base 420 with two base set portions at connections 464, as set portions of 420 are isolated from each other providing functionality and connectivity of 460/464 to 300,330, see e.g. paragraphs [11-13, 26,44-56, 58-67, 70-77], Figs. 2-5, actuating in optical axis, z-direction/optical axis);
a second actuator comprising a second set of base portions that are electrically isolated from one another, (other parts of AF driver 330 of 300 on movable frame/base 420 with other two base set portions at connections 464, as set portions of 420 are isolated from each other providing functionality and connectivity of 460/464 to 300,330, see e.g. paragraphs [11-13, 26,44-56, 58-67, 70-77], Figs. 2-5, actuating in optical axis, z-direction/optical axis); and
a set of wire springs, claim 8, a wire spring (elastic members 460 AF driver 330 of 300 on movable frame 420, e.g. paragraphs [44-56, 58-67, 70-77], Figs. 2-5) comprise:
a first end connected to a first corresponding base portion of the first set of base portions of the first actuator (first end connection 464 of 460 connected to first set base portions of 420,e.g. 70-77], Figs. 2-7);
a second end connected to a second corresponding base portion of the second base portion (as best understood, second end connection 464 of 460 connected to second set base portions of 420,e.g. 70-77], Figs. 2-7), wherein each of the set of wire springs (460) allow an electrical current to flow between the first actuator and the second actuator (as 460 electrically connect each part of AF 300, 330, and 400, paragraphs [26, 34, 77], Figs. 2-7); and
and at least two flattening bends within each wire spring (as each 460 has bends at 464 and 462, Figs. 2-4) that creates a down force to maintain each wire spring disposed in a positive z-direction (i.e. as best understood the wire spring 460 with 464, 462 have pre-load function in optical axis direction ( Z coordinate direction), for applied force, given that movable frame 420 may return to the initial position of the optical axis direction down to the base frame 410 by pressing, i.e. exerting external down force on the movable frame 420 in the optical axis direction/Z direction, thus 460 with the pre-loading function was disposed in positive Z direction along optical axis, as depicted in Figs. 2 Figs. 2, 4-6-8, see specifically, paragraphs [14,20, 23-24,35,66-77]).
In regard to independent claim 15, Kim teaches (see Figs. 1-8) a system, a camera actuation system (as camera module 100, with OIS module 400, AF module 300 see abstract, paragraphs [1, 8-36, 44-56, 58-67, 70-77,83-86], e.g. Figs. 1-4, 5-8) comprising:
an autofocus actuator comprising a first set of base portions that are electrically isolated from one another, the autofocus actuator configured to actuate a lens in a z-direction (AF driver 330 of 300 on movable frame/base 420 with two base set portions at connections 464, as set portions of 420 are isolated from each other providing functionality and connectivity of 460/464 to 300,330, see e.g. paragraphs [11-13, 26,44-56, 58-67, 70-77], Figs. 2-5, actuating in optical axis, z-direction/optical axis);
an optical image stabilization actuator comprising a second base portion that are electrically isolated from one another, the optical image stabilization actuator configured to actuate the lens in any of an x-direction and a y- direction (OIS driver 430 of 400 on base frame 420 with base set portions at connections 464, as set portions of 410 are isolated from each other providing functionality and connectivity of 460/464 to 430, 400, 300,330, see e.g. paragraphs [11-13, 26,44-56, 58-67, 70-77], Figs. 2-5); and
a set of wire springs, claim 8, a wire spring (elastic members 460 AF driver 330 of 300 on movable frame 420, e.g. paragraphs [44-56, 58-67, 70-77], Figs. 2-5) comprise:
a first end connected to a corresponding portion of the first set of base portions of the first actuator (first end connection 464 on 420,e.g. 70-77], Figs. 2-7);
a second end connected to the second base portion (2nd end connection 462 on 410,e.g. 70-77], Figs. 2-7), wherein each of the set of wire springs (460) allow an electrical current to flow between the first actuator and the second actuator (as 460 electrically connect 300,400, paragraphs [26, 34, 77], Figs. 2-7), and
and at least two flattening bends within each wire spring (as each 460 has bends at 464 and 462, Figs. 2-4) that creates a down force to maintain each wire spring disposed in a positive z-direction (i.e. as best understood, the wire spring 460 with 464, 462 have pre-load function in optical axis direction ( Z coordinate direction), for applied force, given that movable frame 420 may return to the initial position of the optical axis direction down to the base frame 410 by pressing, i.e. exerting external down force on the movable frame 420 in the optical axis direction/Z direction, thus 460 with the pre-loading function was disposed in positive Z direction along optical axis, as depicted in Figs. 2 Figs. 2, 4-6-8, see specifically, paragraphs [14,20, 23-24,35,66-77]).
Regarding claim 2, Kim teaches (see Figs. 1-8) that the system comprises a camera actuating system (camera module with AF and OIS assemblies, e.g. abstract, 44-56, 58-67, 70-77,83-86], e.g. Figs. 1-4, 5-8).
Regarding claim 3, 10, and 19, Kim teaches (see Figs. 1-8) that each of the set of wire springs (460) comprise two angled bent portions (as angled bent portions on 460, at 464,462, see 468 e.g. as depicted in Figs. 2 Figs. 2, 4-6-8, paragraphs [20, 23-24,35,66-77]), wherein each wire spring comprises a substantially flat profile (i.e. 460 with flat profile, as depicted in Figs. 2, 4-6-8, paragraphs [20, 23-24,35,66-77]).
Regarding claim 4-5, 11-12 and 20, Kim teaches (see Figs. 1-8) that the first end is welded to corresponding portions of the first set of base portions of the first actuator (as 460 with ends e.g. 464 soldered to corresponding terminals on 420 with conductive solder, e.g. paragraphs [36,66-77], Figs. 2,4,6-8), and
wherein the second end is soldered to the second base portion (as 460 with ends e.g. 462 soldered to corresponding terminals on 410 with conductive solder, e.g. paragraphs [36,66-77], Figs. 2,4,6-8); Moreover, regarding the further limitations of claims 4-5, 10-11 and 20 that are directed to method steps of making/forming the device, and it could have been made using an alternative method such as spot welding, soldering, conductive adhesive, fusing, integrally forming. The method limitations are not germane to patentability pursuant to MPEP §2112.02, since it has been held that “'[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.' In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (citations omitted).”).
Regarding claim 9, Kim teaches (see Figs. 1-8) that the wire spring (460) is part of a set of wire springs (as these are support member springs 460 at four corners of base 410, e.g. paragraphs [66-77], Figs. 2,4,6-8), wherein each of the set of wire springs are configured to connect to corresponding portions of the first set of base portions of the first actuator (each has first end connection to portions of 420, as depicted in Figs. 2, 4-6-8, paragraphs [66-77]).
Claims 1-6, 8-13, 15 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee US 20160323487 A1 (of record).
In regard to independent claims 1-2, 8, and 15, Lee teaches (see Figs. 1-22) a system, a camera actuation system (as moving unit and- camera module having the same system, see abstract, paragraphs [3, 8-48, 72-80, 129-131, 129-131, 135-139, 153-166,183-192], e.g. Figs. 1-3, 8-12,15, 18-22) comprising:
a first, autofocus actuator comprising a first set of base portions that are electrically isolated from one another, the autofocus actuator configured to actuate a lens in a z-direction (1st lens moving unit 100 with parts of 150, and isolated set parts of 140 at e.g. supports 220 parts as providing functionality and connectivity to 100, and 200, and actuating in one side of optical axis z-direction for autofocusing, paragraphs [72-80, 153-166, 129-131, 135-139], Figs. 19,2);
a second, an optical image stabilization (or autofocus, claims 1,2) actuator comprising a second set of base portions that are electrically isolated from one another, the optical image stabilization actuator configured to actuate the lens in any of an x-direction and a y- direction (or z-direction, claim 1) (2nd moving unit 200 for handshake correction moving lens perpendicular to optical axis, with set of insulated base 210 parts at supports 220, 250, paragraphs [73, 129-135, 153, 156, 185-190, 204]; and also regarding claim 1 other 100 parts with other parts of 150, and isolated other (two) set parts of 140 at e.g. supports 220 parts as providing functionality and connectivity to 100, and 200, and actuating in optical axis, one side of z-direction for autofocusing, paragraphs [72-80, 153-166, 129-131, 135-139], Figs. 19,2); and
a set of wire springs, claim 8, a wire spring (elastic members 150 with support members 220 and parts in Figs. 1-3, 8-12, 19-20, paragraphs [164-167,176, 183-197, 85-92, 129-131]), wherein each of the set of wire springs (220) comprise:
a first end connected to a first corresponding base portion of the first set of base portions of the first actuator (first end connection unit 221 around 221a connected to upper first set of (two) elastic parts,150 and base portions on 140,e.g. paragraphs [129-135], Figs. 2-3, 8-12);
a second end connected to a second corresponding base portion of the second set of base portion (2nd end fixation unit terminal 226, 224 fixed to base, board 210,250 of 200 paragraphs [130, 138-139], Figs. 2-3, 8-11; or e.g. regarding claim 1 other end connection unit 221 around 221a connected to upper first set of other (two) elastic parts,150 and base portions on 140,e.g. paragraphs [129-135], Figs. 2-3, 8-12),
wherein each of the set of wire springs (220) allow an electrical current to flow to the first actuator and the second actuator (as each 220 can supply electric power from 100 to 200, see paragraphs [164-165, 191, 197-198, 204, 129-131, 129-131, 135-139]); and
at least two flattening bends within each wire spring that creates a down force to maintain each wire spring disposed in a positive z-direction (as best understood and treated due to 112b issues noted above, as each elastic support member 220 with flattened bends on 221,223 and bend 226,221 on 220, e.g. paragraphs [73, 129-131, 135-139], Figs. 19-20, 2-8, maintain 220 extended in optical axis direction and can be easily bent with smaller force as bending force is applied to 220, and as 220 can generate spring force due to bends and shape, see paragraphs [73, 114, 129-131, 135-139], as depicted Figs. 19-20, 2-8, 10).
Regarding claim 3, 10, and 19, Lee teaches (see Figs. 1-22) that each of the set of wire springs (220, 520) comprise two angled bent portions (as angled bent portions on 220 and 520, e.g. paragraphs [191-192, 196, 171-172, 73, 129-131, 135-139], Figs. 19-20, 2, 8-10), wherein each wire spring comprises a substantially flat profile (i.e. best understood, 220, 520 have flat profile at least in sections, parts, see details in Figs. 10, 20, paragraphs [191-192, 171-172, 129-131, 135-139]).
Regarding claim 4-5, 11-12 and 20, Lee teaches (see Figs. 1-22) that the first end is welded to corresponding portions of the first set of base portions of the first actuator (as 521, 221 connected to 450,150 as integrally formed and electrically connected , paragraphs [183, 190-192, 114, 130-131], Figs. 10, 20), and
wherein the second end is soldered to the second base portion (as 526,524, 226,224, inserted and soldered to 450,210(250) and electrically connected , paragraphs [191, 196-198, 130,134,138-139], Figs. 10, 20; Moreover, regarding the further limitations of claims 4-5, 10-11 and 20 that are directed to method steps of making/forming the device, and it could have been made using an alternative method such as spot welding, soldering, conductive adhesive, fusing, integrally forming. The method limitations are not germane to patentability pursuant to MPEP §2112.02, since it has been held that “'[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.' In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (citations omitted).”).
Regarding claim 9, Lee teaches (see Figs. 1-22) that the wire spring (220, 520) is part of a set of wire springs (as these are support member springs 520 at four corners of base 510, also 220 in Figs. 1-3, 8-12, 19-20, paragraphs [176, 183-197, 129-131]), wherein each of the set of wire springs are configured to connect to corresponding portions of the first set of base portions of the first actuator (each has first end connection unit 521,221 connected to upper elastic 420,150 base portions on 440,140,e.g. paragraphs [191-192, 129-135], Figs. 19-20, 2-3, 8-12).
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 6 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Lee US 20160323487 A1 (of record)
Regarding claim 6 and 13, Lee teaches (see Figs. 1-22) that each of the set of wire springs (520,220 and parts have thickness in some direction e.g. optical axis, or perpendicular to optical axis, with AF or OIS actuators 400,500, 100,200), have a maximum profile of around .2mm in the positive z-direction (i.e. as due to 400, 100 can have minimal or zero actuation, and/or as 500,200 actuations produce handshake correction in x-y plane, e.g. paragraphs [73-75,148, 153, 156,185,195]).
In the alternative that the above limitation is not met by support springs of Lee, the limitations is obvious as follows. Lee discloses the claimed invention except explicitly that set of wire springs have maximum profile of around .2mm in the positive z-direction. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to adjust the thickness or profile of elastic members ( 520,522,523, 220,222,223, connected to upper elastic member(s), paragraphs [21-29,114, 130-136, 191-196, 45-46]), since 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). In the current instance, profile or thickness of support members connected to elastic members is an art-recognized results effective variable in that the profile or thickness influences elastic deformation, movement and damping of movable housing as taught by Lee at pars. [21-29,114, 130-136, 191-196, 45-46]. Thus, one would have been motivated to optimize the optimize profile of support members to the above range, and because it is an art-recognized result-effective variable and it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art, in re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP §2144.05(1I)(B) “after KSR, the presence of a known result-effective variable would be one, but not the only, motivation for a personal of ordinary skill in the art to experiment to reach another workable product or process.” Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success when making this modification because profile of support members and elastic response of support members is a routine activity in lens actuation design, and would provide accuracy of handshake correction can be enhanced, where the characteristic of the elastic deformation unit extendable to a lengthwise direction is utilized for the accuracy, and reduce a minute vibration generated from a support member is provided to enable a more stable handshake correction control, thus advantageously providing lens moving unit capable of miniaturizing a camera module by a reduced height and including handshake correction function capable of improving an operational reliability (paragraphs [133, 195, 45-47)).
Claims 16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Lee US 20160323487 A1 (of record) in view of Howarth et al. (hereafter Howarth, of record see IDS dated 09/18/2024) US 20150304561 A1.
Regarding claim 16, Lee teaches (see Figs. 1-22) that the set of wire springs comprise a material (as each 520, 220 supply electric power from 510 to 450 on 440 i.e. from 500 to 400, and 220 in analog manner between 100 and 200 and are made of elastic current conducting material, see paragraphs [164-165, 191, 197-198, 204, 129-131, 129-131, 135-139, 45-46]), wherein each of the set of wire springs allow an electrical current to flow between the autofocus actuator and the optical image stabilization actuator (as each 520, 220 can supply electric power from 510 to 450 on 440 i.e. from 500 to 400, and 220 in analog manner between 100 and 200, see paragraphs [164-165, 191, 197-198, 204, 129-131, 129-131, 135-139]), but is silent that material is stainless steel.
However, Howarth teaches in the same field of invention of a suspension system for a camera lens element (see Figs.1-20, abstract, paragraphs [1-3, 10-24,33-43,55-63, 92-108,112-121 ) and further teaches that wire springs comprise stainless steel material (i.e. as flexures 67 or resilient members 92 are made of any suitable material having the desired resilience, electrically conductive metal, with relatively high yield, \as stainless steel, paragraphs [105, 113]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adapt and use stainless steel material as material of wire springs of Lee according to teachings of Howarth where such support flexures and resilient members supporting moving assembly over support assembly, in order to provide that the wire springs are made of such suitable material having the desired resilience, electrically conductive metal, with relatively high yield, (see Howarth paragraphs [105, 113]).
Regarding claim 18, Lee teaches (see Figs. 1-22) any of the autofocus actuator and/or the optical image stabilization actuator (i.e. as lens moving unit 400 for AF with base housing 440, upper elastic 450, also 100 with 150, actuating in optical axis, z-direction, paragraphs [72-80, 153-166, 129-131, 135-139], and 2nd moving unit 500 for handshake correction moving lens perpendicular to optical axis, also 200 with 210 (with 250), paragraphs [73, 129-135, 153, 156, 185-190, 204]) but is silent that any of them comprise shape memory alloy (SMA) actuators including an SMA material configured to actuate in response to an electrical current being provided to the SMA material.
However, Howarth teaches in the same field of invention of a suspension system for a camera lens element (see Figs.1-20, abstract, paragraphs [1-3, 10-24,33-43,55-63, 92-108,112-121]) and further teaches that any of the autofocus actuator and/or the optical image stabilization actuator including an SMA material configured to actuate in response to an electrical current being provided to the SMA material (i.e. as both AF axial actuation 24 can be VCM actuator, or SMA actuator, and that OIS/lateral actuator is SMA actuator, using SMA actuation material e.g. SMA wires 80, paragraphs [6, 18-20, 61-63, 71-73, 78-87, 128-133] and provide particular advantage that is achieved by SMA actuator wires connected between the support structure and the camera lens element, allowing selective driving, movement the movable element relative to the support structure in any direction orthogonal to the optical axis of the at least one lens, provide a lateral biasing force that biases the camera lens element towards a central position). Howarth hence teaches that SMA based lateral OIS actuator is an equivalent structure in the art.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adapt and modify the OIS actuator of Lee to include SMA based OIS actuator according to teachings of Howarth, in order to provide particular advantage that is achieved by SMA actuator wires connected between the support structure and the camera lens element, allowing selective driving and movement the movable element relative to the support structure in any direction orthogonal to the optical axis of the at least one lens, provide a lateral biasing force that biases the camera lens element towards a central position (see Howarth paragraphs [18-21]).
Moreover, because these two actuation mechanisms i.e. VCM and SMA based actuations were art-recognized equivalents before the effective filing date of the claimed inventions, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to substitute SMA based actuator for VCM actuator(See MPEP §2144.06), in order to provide selective driving and movement the movable element relative to the support structure in any direction orthogonal to the optical axis of the at least one lens, provide a lateral biasing force that biases the camera lens element towards a central position (see Howarth paragraphs [18-21]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed in the Remarks dated 05/05/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Specifically, the Applicant argues that the cited prior art of Kim does not disclose new amended limitations of independent claims 1, 8 and 15, namely (1) “at least two flattening bends within the wire spring that comprises a preload that creates a down force to maintain each wire spring disposed in a positive z-direction” because Kim describes AF assembly 300 and OIS assembly, where movable frame 420 with 300 is connected with elastic members 460 to base 410 with OIS 400 as the gravitational weight of the moving assembly pressing down on the suspension springs in Kim is not a down force created by the bent geometry of the wire spring. The Examiner, respectfully disagrees. As an initial matter, as explained in the 112(b) rejections above, the wire spring bent geometry does not create any force. The force on the spring is applied force resulting in some spring displacement e.g. x, and the spring then exerts the spring force of -kx, i.e. opposite to the displacement x, and where the characteristics, i.e. material, geometry of the spring are expressed in the spring constant k. The spring can have a pre-load or pre-loading function given its bent shape and material characteristics, and where this pre-loading function is associated with applied external force, e.g. preload force or down force. Further, with respect to issue (1), as note in the rejection above, the cited prior art of Kim teaches all limitations of independent claims 1, 8 and 15, as Kim teaches (see Figs. 1-8) a system, a camera actuation system (as camera module 100, with OIS module 400, AF module 300 see abstract, paragraphs [1, 8-36, 44-56, 58-67, 70-77,83-86], e.g. Figs. 1-4, 5-8) comprising:
a first actuator comprising a first set of base portions that are electrically isolated from one another, the autofocus actuator configured to actuate a lens in a z-direction (parts AF driver 330 of 300 on movable frame/base 420 with two base set portions at connections 464, as set portions of 420 are isolated from each other providing functionality and connectivity of 460/464 to 300,330, see e.g. paragraphs [11-13, 26,44-56, 58-67, 70-77], Figs. 2-5, actuating in optical axis, z-direction/optical axis);
a second actuator comprising a second set of base portions that are electrically isolated from one another, (other parts of AF driver 330 of 300 on movable frame/base 420 with other two base set portions at connections 464, as set portions of 420 are isolated from each other providing functionality and connectivity of 460/464 to 300,330, see e.g. paragraphs [11-13, 26,44-56, 58-67, 70-77], Figs. 2-5, actuating in optical axis, z-direction/optical axis); and
a set of wire springs, claim 8, a wire spring (elastic members 460 AF driver 330 of 300 on movable frame 420, e.g. paragraphs [44-56, 58-67, 70-77], Figs. 2-5) comprise:
a first end connected to a first corresponding base portion of the first set of base portions of the first actuator (first end connection 464 of 460 connected to first set base portions of 420,e.g. 70-77], Figs. 2-7);
a second end connected to a second corresponding base portion of the second base portion (as best understood, second end connection 464 of 460 connected to second set base portions of 420,e.g. 70-77], Figs. 2-7), wherein each of the set of wire springs (460) allow an electrical current to flow between the first actuator and the second actuator (as 460 electrically connect each part of AF 300, 330, and 400, paragraphs [26, 34, 77], Figs. 2-7); and
and at least two flattening bends within each wire spring (as each 460 has bends at 464 and 462, Figs. 2-4) that creates a down force to maintain each wire spring disposed in a positive z-direction (i.e. as best understood the wire spring 460 with 464, 462 have pre-load function in optical axis direction ( Z coordinate direction), for applied force, given that movable frame 420 may return to the initial position of the optical axis direction down to the base frame 410 by pressing, i.e. exerting external down force on the movable frame 420 in the optical axis direction/Z direction, thus 460 with the pre-loading function was disposed in positive Z direction along optical axis, as depicted in Figs. 2 Figs. 2, 4-6-8, see specifically, paragraphs [14,20, 23-24,35,66-77]).
Specifically, Kim teaches that at least two flattening bends within each wire spring (as each 460 has bends at 464 and 462, Figs. 2-4) and that creates a down force to maintain each wire spring disposed in a positive z-direction, i.e. as best understood the wire spring 460 with 464, 462 have pre-load function in optical axis direction ( Z coordinate direction), for applied force, given that movable frame 420 may return to the initial position of the optical axis direction down to the base frame 410 by pressing, i.e. exerting external down force on the movable frame 420 in the optical axis direction/Z direction, thus 460 with the pre-loading function was disposed in positive Z direction along optical axis, as depicted in Figs. 2 Figs. 2, 4-6-8, see specifically, paragraphs [14,20, 23-24,35,66-77]).
Therefore Kim teaches all limitations of independent claims, including the limitations raised under issue (1) above. The same arguments also apply to claims 8 and 15, as presented above.
Applicant argues that the cited prior art of Lee does not disclose the above noted limitations under (1) as in Lee the support member (220) can be easily bent with a smaller force to form the connection unit, as the "bending" of the support member 220 is performed to form a shape of the connection unit (221). The Examiner disagrees. As noted above, the wire spring bent geometry does not create any force. The force on the spring is applied force resulting in some spring displacement e.g. x, and the spring then exerts the spring force of -kx, i.e. opposite to the displacement x, and where the characteristics, i.e. material, geometry of the spring are expressed in the spring constant k. The spring can have a pre-load or pre-loading function given its bent shape and material characteristics, and where this pre-loading function is associated with applied external force, e.g. preload force or down force.
With respect to issue (1), as note in the rejection above, the cited prior art of Lee teaches all limitations of independent claims 1, 8 and 15, as Lee teaches (see Figs. 1-22) a system, a camera actuation system (as moving unit and- camera module having the same system, see abstract, paragraphs [3, 8-48, 72-80, 129-131, 129-131, 135-139, 153-166,183-192], e.g. Figs. 1-3, 8-12,15, 18-22) comprising:
a first, autofocus actuator comprising a first set of base portions that are electrically isolated from one another, the autofocus actuator configured to actuate a lens in a z-direction (1st lens moving unit 100 with parts of 150, and isolated set parts of 140 at e.g. supports 220 parts as providing functionality and connectivity to 100, and 200, and actuating in one side of optical axis z-direction for autofocusing, paragraphs [72-80, 153-166, 129-131, 135-139], Figs. 19,2);
a second, an optical image stabilization (or autofocus, claims 1,2) actuator comprising a second set of base portions that are electrically isolated from one another, the optical image stabilization actuator configured to actuate the lens in any of an x-direction and a y- direction (or z-direction, claim 1) (2nd moving unit 200 for handshake correction moving lens perpendicular to optical axis, with set of insulated base 210 parts at supports 220, 250, paragraphs [73, 129-135, 153, 156, 185-190, 204]; and also regarding claim 1 other 100 parts with other parts of 150, and isolated other (two) set parts of 140 at e.g. supports 220 parts as providing functionality and connectivity to 100, and 200, and actuating in optical axis, one side of z-direction for autofocusing, paragraphs [72-80, 153-166, 129-131, 135-139], Figs. 19,2); and
a set of wire springs, claim 8, a wire spring (elastic members 150 with support members 220 and parts in Figs. 1-3, 8-12, 19-20, paragraphs [164-167,176, 183-197, 85-92, 129-131]), wherein each of the set of wire springs (220) comprise:
a first end connected to a first corresponding base portion of the first set of base portions of the first actuator (first end connection unit 221 around 221a connected to upper first set of (two) elastic parts,150 and base portions on 140,e.g. paragraphs [129-135], Figs. 2-3, 8-12);
a second end connected to a second corresponding base portion of the second set of base portion (2nd end fixation unit terminal 226, 224 fixed to base, board 210,250 of 200 paragraphs [130, 138-139], Figs. 2-3, 8-11; or e.g. regarding claim 1 other end connection unit 221 around 221a connected to upper first set of other (two) elastic parts,150 and base portions on 140,e.g. paragraphs [129-135], Figs. 2-3, 8-12),
wherein each of the set of wire springs (220) allow an electrical current to flow to the first actuator and the second actuator (as each 220 can supply electric power from 100 to 200, see paragraphs [164-165, 191, 197-198, 204, 129-131, 129-131, 135-139]); and
at least two flattening bends within each wire spring that creates a down force to maintain each wire spring disposed in a positive z-direction (as best understood and treated due to 112b issues noted above, as each elastic support member 220 with flattened bends on 221,223 and bend 226,221 on 220, e.g. paragraphs [73, 129-131, 135-139], Figs. 19-20, 2-8, maintain 220 extended in optical axis direction and can be easily bent with smaller force as bending force is applied to 220, and as 220 can generate spring force due to bends and shape, see paragraphs [73, 114, 129-131, 135-139], as depicted Figs. 19-20, 2-8, 10).
Specifically, Lee teaches at least two flattening bends within each wire spring that creates a down force to maintain each wire spring disposed in a positive z-direction, as best understood and treated due to 112b issues noted above, as each elastic support member 220 with flattened bends on 221,223 and bend 226,221 on 220, e.g. paragraphs [73, 129-131, 135-139], Figs. 19-20, 2-8, maintain 220 extended in optical axis direction and can be easily bent with smaller force as bending force is applied to 220, and as 220 can generate spring force due to its bends and shape, see paragraphs [73, 114, 129-131, 135-139], as depicted Figs. 19-20, 2-8, 10).
Therefore Lee teaches all limitations of independent claims, including the limitations raised under issue (1) above.
No additional substantial arguments were presented after page 10 of the Remarks dated 05/05/2026.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Lin et al. US 20190033552 A1 also teaches that preload spring force can be applied to the first resilient element(s) having shape structures disposed in z-direction (see e.g. Fig. 10 and its descriptions).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARIN PICHLER whose telephone number is (571)272-4015. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30am -5:00pm.
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, Thomas K Pham can be reached on (571)272-3689. 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.
/MARIN PICHLER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights