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 .
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.
Response to Amendment
Applicant's arguments filed 2/25/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In particular, regarding applicant’s assertion that Nomura does not teach “wherein the second driving part is configured to move the moving part to compensate for a difference between he first position and the detected shaking angle”, examiner respectfully disagrees. Nomura does not disclose a specific time during which the movement via the first driving part 46 of the moving part 32 to the first position and the second driving part 53 of the movable part 36 to the second position happens at the same time – just that the necessary movement amounts are calculated by the control circuit 14a and each motor 46 and 53 are driven in their respective axial directions via driving pulses in accordance with the calculated values (Nomura para. 0080). Further, as similarly discussed in claim 6, Nomura para. 0080-0081 teaches that 46 and 53 are actuated via driving pulses to correct image shake, this would include correcting errors made between the moving angles of the first and second driving parts and the shaking angle to ensure a fully stabilized and blur-free image.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., that the camera module is a two-stage error compensation system based on a coarse-to-fine method in which the second driving part waits to see the result of the first driving part and then acts) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nomura US 20060115254 (hereinafter “Nomura”) of record in view of Kishida et. al US 20120262595 (hereinafter “Kishida”) of record.
Regarding claim 1, Nomura teaches a camera module (Nomura fig. 1-32) comprising:
a fixed part (Nomura fig. 2 – 11, 15, 16);
a moving part (Nomura fig. 8-9 - 32, 36, 30, see also para. 0066) which moves relative to the fixed part (11) in an optical axis direction (Nomura para. 0065, where the optical axis direction is Z1);
a first driving part (Nomura fig. 9 - 46 drives 32 to move left or right, see also para. 0078 and fig. 22-23) configured to move the moving part (32, 30) at a first maximum speed (Nomura para. 0080) to a first position (Nomura para. 0074) based on a detected shaking angle (Nomura para. 0080 - moving angle is calculated, to which a driving signal to drive 32 is created to compensate for); and
a second driving part (Nomura fig. 9 - 53 drives 36 upwards or downwards, see also para. 0078 and fig. 22-23) configured to move the moving part (36, 30) at a second maximum speed (Nomura para. 0080) to a second position (Nomura para. 0076),
wherein the first driving part (46) and the second driving part (53) move the moving part (32, 36, 30) in a direction perpendicular to the optical axis direction (Nomura para. 0078-0080),
wherein the second driving part (53) is configured to move the moving part (36) to compensate for a difference between the first position and the detected shaking angle (Nomura para. 0080-0081 – discuss the calculated driving pulses based on a moving angle calculated from a camera shake angle during which compensation in the position of the moving part would be considered and corrected via 46 and 53).
Nomura does not specify wherein the second maximum speed is higher than the first maximum speed.
In the same field of endeavor, Kishida teaches wherein the second maximum speed (Kishida fig. 1 – 64 drives G4) is higher than the first maximum speed (Kishida fig. 1 – 63 drives G2 and 65 drives G5; fig. 13 – G4 being the steeper solid line which represents a higher maximum speed and G2, G5 being the dotted line – see also para. 0125-0126) for the purpose of reducing the noise and change in tone caused by switching the drive speed (Kishida para. 0127). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a second maximum speed higher than the first maximum speed in order to reduce the noise and change in tone caused by switching the drive speed (Kishida para. 0127). Therefore, having a speed difference between the first driving part and the second driving part as disclosed by Kishida applied to the first driving part 46 and the second driving part 53 of Nomura which drive the moving part 30, 32, 36 perpendicularly to the optical axis Z1 would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 2, Nomura and Kishida teach the camera module of claim 1, and Nomura further teaches wherein:
the fixed part (11, 15, 16) includes at least one of a housing and a base (Nomura para. 0050-0051 – 11 is a housing and 15, 16 are a base); and
the moving part (30, 32, 36) includes at least one of a lens part (Nomura fig. 2 - 30) and an image sensor (Nomura fig. 2 – 13g, see also para. 0066).
Regarding claim 3, Nomura and Kishida teach the camera module of claim 2, and Nomura further teaches wherein:
the lens part (30) is disposed in the housing (Nomura fig. 2 – 30 is disposed within 11);
the lens part (30) includes a lens holder (30) and a lens assembly (Nomura fig. 2 - 13e, 13f) disposed in the lens holder (Kishida fig. 2 – 30 is a holder for 13e and 13f); and
the image sensor (13g) is disposed in the base (Nomura fig. 2 – 13g is disposed on 16).
Regarding claim 4, Nomura and Kishida teach the camera module of claim 1, and Nomura further teaches wherein the first driving part (46) moves the moving part (32, 30) to correspond to a shaking angle (Nomura para. 0080).
Regarding claim 5, Nomura and Kishida teach the camera module of claim 4, and Nomura further teaches wherein the second driving part (53) moves the moving part (36, 30) to compensate for a difference between the shaking angle and a moving angle caused by the first driving part (Nomura para. 0080).
Regarding claim 6, Nomura and Kishida teach the camera module of claim 5, and Nomura further teaches
wherein the second driving part (53) moves the moving part (36) to correspond to an error between the first driving part (46) and the shaking angle at a different time after the first driving part (46) moves the moving part (32) at the moving angle (Nomura para. 0080),
wherein the error corresponds to the moving angle caused by the first driving part (46), the shaking angle, and another moving angle caused by the second driving part (53, Nomura para. 0080-0081 – 46 and 53 are actuated via driving pulses to correct image shake, this would include correcting errors made between the moving angles of the first and second driving parts and the shaking angle to ensure a fully stabilized and blur-free image).
Regarding claim 7, Nomura and Kishida teach the camera module of claim 3, and Kishida further teaches wherein the first driving part (63) and the second driving part (64) are selectively controlled according to a focal length between the lens assembly (L4-L6 are included in G2 and driven by 63) and the image sensor (Kishida para. 0126-0130 - talks of positioning G4 for focusing and using G2 and G5 to enhance the accuracy).
Regarding claim 8, Nomura and Kishida teach the camera module of claim 7, wherein, when the focal length is greater than a first threshold (Kishida para. 0126-0129), the moving part (G2 and G4-G5) is moved by the first driving part (63 and 65 drive G2 and G5 respectively, see also para. 0126 and 0129 – where G4 is driven until a peak focus position is detected, and a rescan using G2 and G5 is not immediately required) and the second driving part (64 drives G4, see also para. 0126 and 0129 – where G2 and G5 may be accelerated in order to perform a rescan to enhance detection accuracy).
Regarding claim 9, Nomura and Kishida teach the camera module of claim 8, and Kishida further teaches wherein:
when the focal length is smaller than the first threshold and greater than a second threshold (Kishida para. 0126 – the “near” side and the “far” side vs. the peak position), the moving part (G4) is moved by the first driving part (64, see also Kishida para. 0126 – G4 is used to find the focus position); and
the first threshold is greater than the second threshold (Kishida para. 0126 – G4 is driven between a “near” side and a “far” side of a focus position until a “peak” is met, G2 and G5 are prevented from moving until the peak focus position is detected).
Regarding claim 10, Nomura and Kishida teach the camera module of claim 9, and Kishida further teaches wherein, when the focal length is smaller than the second threshold (Kishida para. 0129), the moving part (G2 and G5) is moved by the second driving part (63 and 65, Kishida para. 0129 – when the difference in the current versus tracking positions of G2 and G5 is less than a predetermined value, a rescan where G2 and G5 are moved to increase accuracy of the focus position is immediately conducted).
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nomura US 20060115254 (hereinafter “Nomura”) of record in view of Miyamoto US 20060204233 (hereinafter “Miyamoto”) of record.
Regarding claim 1, Nomura teaches a camera module (Nomura fig. 1-32) comprising:
a fixed part (Nomura fig. 2 – 11, 15, 16);
a moving part (Nomura fig. 8-9 - 32, 36, 30, see also para. 0066) which moves relative to the fixed part (11) in an optical axis direction (Nomura para. 0065, where the optical axis direction is Z1);
a first driving part (Nomura fig. 9 - 46 drives 32 to move left or right, see also para. 0078 and fig. 22-23) configured to move the moving part (32, 30) at a first maximum speed (Nomura para. 0080) to a first position (Nomura para. 0074) based on a detected shaking angle (Nomura para. 0080 - moving angle is calculated, to which a driving signal to drive 32 is created to compensate for); and
a second driving part (Nomura fig. 9 - 53 drives 36 upwards or downwards, see also para. 0078 and fig. 22-23) configured to move the moving part (36, 30) at a second maximum speed (Nomura para. 0080) to a second position (Nomura para. 0076),
wherein the first driving part (46) and the second driving part (53) move the moving part (32, 36, 30) in a direction perpendicular to the optical axis direction (Nomura para. 0078-0080),
wherein the second driving part (53) is configured to move the moving part (36) to compensate for a difference between the first position and the detected shaking angle (Nomura para. 0080-0081 – discuss the calculated driving pulses based on a moving angle calculated from a camera shake angle during which compensation in the position of the moving part would be considered and corrected via 46 and 53).
Nomura does not specify that the second maximum speed is higher than the first maximum speed.
In the same field of endeavor, Miyamoto teaches the second maximum speed is higher than the first maximum speed (Miyamoto para. 0031-0032, 0034, 0036, 0039 – the speed at which the correction lens 11 is displaced in a direction perpendicular to the optical axis may be adjusted by controlling the current supplied to the first coil 13) for the purpose of reducing or correcting image vibration on a CCD (Miyamoto para. 0024).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to make the second maximum speed higher than the first maximum speed, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Antonie 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977); In re Boesch 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claim 2, Nomura and Miyamoto teach the camera module of claim 1, and Nomura further teaches wherein:
the fixed part (11, 15, 16) includes at least one of a housing and a base (Nomura para. 0050-0051 – 11 is a housing and 15, 16 are a base); and
the moving part (30, 32, 36) includes at least one of a lens part (Nomura fig. 2 - 30) and an image sensor (Nomura fig. 2 – 13g, see also para. 0066).
Regarding claim 3, Nomura and Miyamoto teach the camera module of claim 2, and Nomura further teaches wherein:
the lens part (30) is disposed in the housing (Nomura fig. 2 – 30 is disposed within 11);
the lens part (30) includes a lens holder (30) and a lens assembly (Nomura fig. 2 - 13e, 13f) disposed in the lens holder (Nomura fig. 2 – 30 is a holder for 13e and 13f); and
the image sensor (13g) is disposed in the base (Nomura fig. 2 – 13g is disposed on 16).
Regarding claim 4, Nomura and Miyamoto teach the camera module of claim 1, and Nomura further teaches wherein the first driving part (46) moves the moving part (32, 30) to correspond to a shaking angle (Nomura para. 0080).
Regarding claim 5, Nomura and Miyamoto teach the camera module of claim 4, and Nomura further teaches wherein the second driving part (53) moves the moving part (36, 30) to compensate for a difference between the shaking angle and a moving angle caused by the first driving part (Nomura para. 0080).
Regarding claim 6, Nomura and Miyamoto teach the camera module of claim 5, and Nomura further teaches
wherein the second driving part (53) moves the moving part (36) to correspond to an error between the first driving part (46) and the shaking angle at a different time after the first driving part (46) moves the moving part (32) at the moving angle (Nomura para. 0080),
wherein the error corresponds to the moving angle caused by the first driving part (46), the shaking angle, and another moving angle caused by the second driving part (53, Nomura para. 0080-0081 – 46 and 53 are actuated via driving pulses to correct image shake, this would include correcting errors made between the moving angles of the first and second driving parts and the shaking angle to ensure a fully stabilized and blur-free image).
Regarding claim 7, Nomura and Miyamoto teach the camera module of claim 3, and they further teach wherein the first driving part (46) and the second driving part (53) are selectively controlled according to a focal length between the lens assembly and the image sensor (Miyamoto para. 0031-0032, 0034, 0036, 0039 – teaches that the displacement amount and displacement speed may be selectively controlled).
Claims 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nomura and Miyamoto as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Kishida et. al US 20120262595 (hereinafter “Kishida”) of record.
Regarding claim 8, Nomura and Miyamoto teach the camera module of claim 7.
Nomura and Miyamoto do not specify a first threshold for the focal length.
In the same field of endeavor, Kishida teaches when the focal length is greater than a first threshold (Kishida para. 0126-0129), the moving part (G2 and G4-G5) is moved by the first driving part (63 and 65 drive G2 and G5 respectively, see also para. 0126 and 0129 – where G4 is driven until a peak focus position is detected, and a rescan using G2 and G5 is not immediately required) and the second driving part (64 drives G4, see also para. 0126 and 0129 – where G2 and G5 may be accelerated in order to perform a rescan to enhance detection accuracy) for the purpose of enhancing detection accuracy (Kishida para. 0129). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a first threshold for the focal length in order to enhance detection accuracy (Kishida para. 0129).
Regarding claim 9, Nomura, Miyamoto, and Kishida teach the camera module of claim 8, and Kishida further teaches wherein:
when the focal length is smaller than the first threshold and greater than a second threshold (Kishida para. 0126 – the “near” side and the “far” side vs. the peak position), the moving part (G4) is moved by the first driving part (64, see also Kishida para. 0126 – G4 is used to find the focus position); and
the first threshold is greater than the second threshold (Kishida para. 0126 – G4 is driven between a “near” side and a “far” side of a focus position until a “peak” is met, G2 and G5 are prevented from moving until the peak focus position is detected).
Regarding claim 10, Nomura, Miyamoto, and Kishida teach the camera module of claim 9, and Kishida further teaches wherein, when the focal length is smaller than the second threshold (Kishida para. 0129), the moving part (G2 and G5) is moved by the second driving part (63 and 65, Kishida para. 0129 – when the difference in the current versus tracking positions of G2 and G5 is less than a predetermined value, a rescan where G2 and G5 are moved to increase accuracy of the focus position is immediately conducted).
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 on (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
Prosecution Insights