DETAILED ACTION
This office action is responsive to application 18/067,447 filed on December 16, 2022. Claims 1-25 are pending in the application and have been examined by the Examiner.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) filed on May 12, 2023 was received and has been considered by the Examiner.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
Applicant is advised that should claims 5 be found allowable, claim 20 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Applicant is advised that should claims 6 be found allowable, claim 21 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Applicant is advised that should claims 7 be found allowable, claim 22 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Applicant is advised that should claims 8 be found allowable, claim 23 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Applicant is advised that should claims 9 be found allowable, claim 24 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Applicant is advised that should claims 10 be found allowable, claim 25 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 5-10 and 20-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Liu et al. (US 2021/0208418).
Consider claim 1, Liu et al. teaches:
A spacer assembly (see figures 15, 18B, 21, 23 and 24) comprising:
an essentially-planer structural portion (second supporting element, 926, second supporting bodies, 9261, see figures 15, 18B, and 21, paragraphs 0273, 0274, 0282 and 0283) configured to position an image sensor (photosensitive element, 923, paragraph 0254) on a MEMS actuator (The structural portion (926) positions the image sensor (923) on a driver (922) which is a MEMS actuator, paragraphs 0257 and 0273, figures 15, 21, 23 and 24.);
an outer sub-portion (i.e. the bottom of the structural portion (926) in figures 15, 21, 23 and 24) configured to be mounted to the MEMS actuator (922, see figures 15, 21, 23 and 24); and
an inner sub-portion (i.e. the top of the structural portion (926) in figures 15, 21, 23 and 24) configured to mount the image sensor (923, see figures 15, 21, 23 and 24).
Consider claim 5, and as applied to claim 1 above, Liu et al. further teaches that the essentially-planer structural portion (926, 9261) includes one or more movement restriction assemblies (second supporting bodies, 9261, paragraph 0282, figure 18B) configured to prevent undesired movement of the image sensor (i.e. so as to maintain a safety gap (927) between the image sensor (923) and the MEMs actuator (922), paragraphs 0277, 0278 and 0282).
Consider claim 6, and as applied to claim 5 above, Liu et al. further teaches that the undesired movement of the image sensor (923) includes drop-induced movement of the image sensor (i.e. so as to maintain a safety gap (927) between the image sensor (923) and the MEMs actuator (922), paragraphs 0277, 0278 and 0282).
Consider claim 7, and as applied to claim 5 above, Liu et al. further teaches that the one or more movement restriction assemblies are configured to limit movement in the X axis & Y axis (i.e. by firmly boding the MEMS actuator (922) and image sensor (923), paragraphs 0277, 0278 and 0282).
Consider claim 8, and as applied to claim 5 above, Liu et al. further teaches that the one or more movement restriction assemblies are configured to essentially prevent movement in the Z axis (i.e. so as to maintain a safety gap (927) between the image sensor (923) and the MEMs actuator (922), paragraphs 0277, 0278 and 0282).
Consider claim 9, and as applied to claim 5 above, Liu et al. further teaches that the one or more movement restriction assemblies (9261) are configured to interface with one or more stop assemblies (i.e. to interface with the movable portion (9221) of the driver (922), paragraph 0282, figures 15 and 21).
Consider claim 10, and as applied to claim 9 above, Liu et al. further teaches that the one or more stop assemblies (9221) are a portion of a holder assembly (i.e. for holding the image sensor (923, see figures 15 and 21).
Consider claim 20, Liu et al. teaches:
A spacer assembly (see figures 15, 18B, 21, 23 and 24) comprising:
an essentially-planer structural portion (second supporting element, 926, see figures 15, 18B, and 21, paragraphs 0273, 0274, 0282 and 0283) configured to position an image sensor (photosensitive element, 923, paragraph 0254) on a MEMS actuator (The structural portion (926) positions the image sensor (923) on a driver (922) which is a MEMS actuator, paragraphs 0257 and 0273, figures 15, 21, 23 and 24.);
an outer sub-portion (i.e. the bottom of the structural portion (926) in figures 15, 21, 23 and 24) configured to be mounted to the MEMS actuator (922, see figures 15, 21, 23 and 24); and
an inner sub-portion (i.e. the top of the structural portion (926) in figures 15, 21, 23 and 24) configured to mount the image sensor (923, see figures 15, 21, 23 and 24);
wherein the essentially-planer structural portion (926) includes one or more movement restriction assemblies (second supporting bodies, 9261, paragraph 0282, figure 18B) configured to prevent undesired movement of the image sensor (i.e. so as to maintain a safety gap (927) between the image sensor (923) and the MEMs actuator (922), paragraphs 0277, 0278 and 0282).
Consider claim 21, and as applied to claim 20 above, Liu et al. further teaches that the undesired movement of the image sensor (923) includes drop-induced movement of the image sensor (i.e. so as to maintain a safety gap (927) between the image sensor (923) and the MEMs actuator (922), paragraphs 0277, 0278 and 0282).
Consider claim 22, and as applied to claim 20 above, Liu et al. further teaches that the one or more movement restriction assemblies are configured to limit movement in the X axis & Y axis (i.e. by firmly boding the MEMS actuator (922) and image sensor (923), paragraphs 0277, 0278 and 0282).
Consider claim 23, and as applied to claim 20 above, Liu et al. further teaches that the one or more movement restriction assemblies are configured to essentially prevent movement in the Z axis (i.e. so as to maintain a safety gap (927) between the image sensor (923) and the MEMs actuator (922), paragraphs 0277, 0278 and 0282).
Consider claim 24, and as applied to claim 20 above, Liu et al. further teaches that the one or more movement restriction assemblies (9261) are configured to interface with one or more stop assemblies (i.e. to interface with the movable portion (9221) of the driver (922), paragraph 0282, figures 15 and 21).
Consider claim 25, and as applied to claim 24 above, Liu et al. further teaches that the one or more stop assemblies (9221) are a portion of a holder assembly (i.e. for holding the image sensor (923, see figures 15 and 21).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 2-4 and 11-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. (US 2021/0208418) in view of Gutierrez et al. (US 2015/0350500).
Consider claim 2, and as applied to claim 1 above, Liu et al. teaches that the inner and outer sub-portions are mounted via glue (“by curing the second glue”, paragraphs 0277 and 0278).
Liu et al. does not explicitly teach that the outer sub-portion is configured to be mounted to the MEMS actuator with an epoxy.
Gutierrez et al. similarly teaches a spacer assembly (i.e. comprising conductive connector, 104, see figure 10B) comprising an outer sub-portion mounted to a MEMS actuator (i.e. to MEMS actuator moving portion, 21, see figure 10B, paragraph 0051) and an inner sub-portion mounted to an image sensor (image sensor, 30, see figure 10B, paragraph 0051).
However, Gutierrez et al. additionally teaches that the inner and outer sub-portions are mounted with an epoxy (“The image sensor 30 and the MEMS actuator moving portion 21 are connected mechanically and electrically by conductive connector 104. In various embodiments, the conductive connector 104 may include solder bridges, conductive epoxy, wire bonding, or any other method suitable for providing an electrical connection between the image sensor 30 and the MEMS actuator moving portion 21.” paragraph 0051).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the inner and outer sub-portions taught by Liu et al. be mounted with an epoxy as taught by Gutierrez et al. as this only involves a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results such as providing shock mitigation (Gutierrez et al., paragraph 0051).
Consider claim 3, and as applied to claim 1 above, Liu et al. teaches that the inner and outer sub-portions are mounted via glue (“by curing the second glue”, paragraphs 0277 and 0278).
Liu et al. does not explicitly teach that the inner sub-portion is configured to mount the image sensor with an epoxy.
Gutierrez et al. similarly teaches a spacer assembly (i.e. comprising conductive connector, 104, see figure 10B) comprising an outer sub-portion mounted to a MEMS actuator (i.e. to MEMS actuator moving portion, 21, see figure 10B, paragraph 0051) and an inner sub-portion mounted to an image sensor (image sensor, 30, see figure 10B, paragraph 0051).
However, Gutierrez et al. additionally teaches that the inner and outer sub-portions are mounted with an epoxy (“The image sensor 30 and the MEMS actuator moving portion 21 are connected mechanically and electrically by conductive connector 104. In various embodiments, the conductive connector 104 may include solder bridges, conductive epoxy, wire bonding, or any other method suitable for providing an electrical connection between the image sensor 30 and the MEMS actuator moving portion 21.” paragraph 0051).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the inner and outer sub-portions taught by Liu et al. be mounted with an epoxy as taught by Gutierrez et al. as this only involves a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results such as providing shock mitigation (Gutierrez et al., paragraph 0051).
Consider claim 4, and as applied to claim 1 above, Liu et al. teaches that the essentially-planer structural portion (926, 9261) includes one or more relief assemblies (second supporting bodies, 9261, figure 18B, paragraph 0282).
However, Liu et al. does not explicitly teach that the one or more relief assemblies are configured to enable electrically-connecting the image sensor and the MEMS actuator.
Gutierrez et al. similarly teaches a spacer assembly (i.e. comprising conductive connector, 104, see figure 10B) comprising an outer sub-portion mounted to a MEMS actuator (i.e. to MEMS actuator moving portion, 21, see figure 10B, paragraph 0051) and an inner sub-portion mounted to an image sensor (image sensor, 30, see figure 10B, paragraph 0051).
However, Gutierrez et al. additionally teaches that the spacer assembly (104) includes a material configured to enable electrically-connecting the image sensor and the MEMS actuator (“The image sensor 30 and the MEMS actuator moving portion 21 are connected mechanically and electrically by conductive connector 104. In various embodiments, the conductive connector 104 may include solder bridges, conductive epoxy, wire bonding, or any other method suitable for providing an electrical connection between the image sensor 30 and the MEMS actuator moving portion 21.” paragraph 0051).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the one or more relief assemblies taught by Liu et al. be configured to enable electrically-connecting the image sensor and the MEMS actuator as taught by Gutierrez et al. for the benefit of providing a moving image sensor package that does not consume excess power and without requiring increased dimensions (Gutierrez et al., paragraph 0005).
Consider claim 11, and as applied to claim 1 above, Liu et al. teaches that the inner and outer sub-portions are mounted via glue (“by curing the second glue”, paragraphs 0277 and 0278).
Liu et al. does not explicitly teach that the spacer assembly is constructed of metal.
Gutierrez et al. similarly teaches a spacer assembly (i.e. comprising conductive connector, 104, see figure 10B) comprising an outer sub-portion mounted to a MEMS actuator (i.e. to MEMS actuator moving portion, 21, see figure 10B, paragraph 0051) and an inner sub-portion mounted to an image sensor (image sensor, 30, see figure 10B, paragraph 0051).
However, Gutierrez et al. additionally teaches that the spacer assembly (104) includes a metal material configured to enable electrically-connecting the image sensor and the MEMS actuator (“The image sensor 30 and the MEMS actuator moving portion 21 are connected mechanically and electrically by conductive connector 104. In various embodiments, the conductive connector 104 may include solder bridges, conductive epoxy, wire bonding, or any other method suitable for providing an electrical connection between the image sensor 30 and the MEMS actuator moving portion 21.” paragraph 0051).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the spacer assembly taught by Liu et al. be constructed of metal as taught by Gutierrez et al. for the benefit of providing a moving image sensor package that does not consume excess power and without requiring increased dimensions (Gutierrez et al., paragraph 0005).
Consider claim 12, Liu et al. teaches:
A spacer assembly (see figures 15, 18B, 21, 23 and 24) comprising:
an essentially-planer structural portion (second supporting element, 926, second supporting bodies, 9261, see figures 15, 18B, and 21, paragraphs 0273, 0274, 0282 and 0283) configured to position an image sensor (photosensitive element, 923, paragraph 0254) on a MEMS actuator (The structural portion (926) positions the image sensor (923) on a driver (922) which is a MEMS actuator, paragraphs 0257 and 0273, figures 15, 21, 23 and 24.);
an outer sub-portion (i.e. the bottom of the structural portion (926) in figures 15, 21, 23 and 24) configured to be mounted to the MEMS actuator (922, see figures 15, 21, 23 and 24); and
an inner sub-portion (i.e. the top of the structural portion (926) in figures 15, 21, 23 and 24) configured to mount the image sensor (923, see figures 15, 21, 23 and 24).
Liu et al. teaches that the inner and outer sub-portions are mounted via glue (“by curing the second glue”, paragraphs 0277 and 0278).
However, Liu et al. does not explicitly teach that the inner and outer sub-portions are mounted with an epoxy.
Gutierrez et al. similarly teaches a spacer assembly (i.e. comprising conductive connector, 104, see figure 10B) comprising an outer sub-portion mounted to a MEMS actuator (i.e. to MEMS actuator moving portion, 21, see figure 10B, paragraph 0051) and an inner sub-portion mounted to an image sensor (image sensor, 30, see figure 10B, paragraph 0051).
However, Gutierrez et al. additionally teaches that the inner and outer sub-portions are mounted with an epoxy (“The image sensor 30 and the MEMS actuator moving portion 21 are connected mechanically and electrically by conductive connector 104. In various embodiments, the conductive connector 104 may include solder bridges, conductive epoxy, wire bonding, or any other method suitable for providing an electrical connection between the image sensor 30 and the MEMS actuator moving portion 21.” paragraph 0051).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the inner and outer sub-portions taught by Liu et al. be mounted with an epoxy as taught by Gutierrez et al. as this only involves a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results such as providing shock mitigation (Gutierrez et al., paragraph 0051).
Consider claim 13, and as applied to claim 12 above, Liu et al. teaches that the essentially-planer structural portion (926, 9261) includes one or more relief assemblies (second supporting bodies, 9261, figure 18B, paragraph 0282).
However, Liu et al. does not explicitly teach that the one or more relief assemblies are configured to enable electrically-connecting the image sensor and the MEMS actuator.
Gutierrez et al. similarly teaches a spacer assembly (i.e. comprising conductive connector, 104, see figure 10B) comprising an outer sub-portion mounted to a MEMS actuator (i.e. to MEMS actuator moving portion, 21, see figure 10B, paragraph 0051) and an inner sub-portion mounted to an image sensor (image sensor, 30, see figure 10B, paragraph 0051).
However, Gutierrez et al. additionally teaches that the spacer assembly (104) includes a material configured to enable electrically-connecting the image sensor and the MEMS actuator (“The image sensor 30 and the MEMS actuator moving portion 21 are connected mechanically and electrically by conductive connector 104. In various embodiments, the conductive connector 104 may include solder bridges, conductive epoxy, wire bonding, or any other method suitable for providing an electrical connection between the image sensor 30 and the MEMS actuator moving portion 21.” paragraph 0051).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the one or more relief assemblies taught by Liu et al. be configured to enable electrically-connecting the image sensor and the MEMS actuator as taught by Gutierrez et al. for the benefit of providing a moving image sensor package that does not consume excess power and without requiring increased dimensions (Gutierrez et al., paragraph 0005).
Consider claim 14, and as applied to claim 12 above, Liu et al. further teaches that the essentially-planer structural portion (926, 9261) includes one or more movement restriction assemblies (second supporting bodies, 9261, paragraph 0282, figure 18B) configured to prevent undesired movement of the image sensor (i.e. so as to maintain a safety gap (927) between the image sensor (923) and the MEMs actuator (922), paragraphs 0277, 0278 and 0282).
Consider claim 15, and as applied to claim 14 above, Liu et al. further teaches that the undesired movement of the image sensor (923) includes drop-induced movement of the image sensor (i.e. so as to maintain a safety gap (927) between the image sensor (923) and the MEMs actuator (922), paragraphs 0277, 0278 and 0282).
Consider claim 16, and as applied to claim 14 above, Liu et al. further teaches that the one or more movement restriction assemblies are configured to limit movement in the X axis & Y axis (i.e. by firmly boding the MEMS actuator (922) and image sensor (923), paragraphs 0277, 0278 and 0282).
Consider claim 17, and as applied to claim 14 above, Liu et al. further teaches that the one or more movement restriction assemblies are configured to essentially prevent movement in the Z axis (i.e. so as to maintain a safety gap (927) between the image sensor (923) and the MEMs actuator (922), paragraphs 0277, 0278 and 0282).
Consider claim 18, and as applied to claim 14 above, Liu et al. further teaches that the one or more movement restriction assemblies (9261) are configured to interface with one or more stop assemblies (i.e. to interface with the movable portion (9221) of the driver (922), paragraph 0282, figures 15 and 21).
Consider claim 19, and as applied to claim 18 above, Liu et al. further teaches that the one or more stop assemblies (9221) are a portion of a holder assembly (i.e. for holding the image sensor (923, see figures 15 and 21).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Smyth (US 12,389,704) teaches a camera module having an image sensor mounted to a flexure (see figures 1, 2, 4A and 4B).
Tanimura et al. (US 2008/0198249) teaches a camera module (figures 2A and 2B) having a spacer assembly (movable substrate, 107) mounted to an image sensor (16) and a coupling part (CN) of an electrostatic actuator (145).
Park et al. (US 2022/0014654) teaches a camera module with an image sensor movable via actuators (see figure 2).
Smyth et al. (US 2021/0092297) teaches a dynamic flex circuit for a camera (see figures 1 and 2).
Goodnough et al. (US 9,664,562) teaches an imaging device (figure 3B) including a detector (390) attached to a flexing structure (310) via a spacer (385).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALBERT H CUTLER whose telephone number is (571)270-1460. The examiner can normally be reached approximately Mon - Fri 8:00-4:30.
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, Sinh Tran can be reached at (571)272-7564. 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.
/ALBERT H CUTLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2637