Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 08/14/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-20 are pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/14/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding the 103 rejections, applicant’s arguments have been fully considered and are appreciated. However, the examiner respectfully disagrees.
Regarding independent claim 1, applicant first argues that the currently applied prior art fails to disclose the step portion opposing the first ball assembly because the rationale to combine – restricting movement of the housing – is unrelated to the position of the ball assembly. However: "The reason or motivation to modify the reference may often suggest what the inventor has done, but for a different purpose or to solve a different problem. It is not necessary that the prior art suggest the combination to achieve the same advantage or result discovered by applicant. See, e.g., In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 987, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (motivation question arises in the context of the general problem confronting the inventor rather than the specific problem solved by the invention); Cross Med. Prods., Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 424 F.3d 1293, 1323, 76 USPQ2d 1662, 1685 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ("One of ordinary skill in the art need not see the identical problem addressed in a prior art reference to be motivated to apply its teachings."); In re Lintner, 458 F.2d 1013, 173 USPQ 560 (CCPA 1972) (discussed below); In re Dillon, 919 F.2d 688, 16 USPQ2d 1897 (Fed. Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 500 U.S. 904 (1991) (discussed below)." Lee ‘959 teaches four step portions, one at each corner of the case. When combined with Lim ‘300, this would necessarily result in a configuration where a step portion opposes the first ball assembly, since there are four step portions, one at each corner. Applicant further argues the “obvious to try” rationale for which corner to place the step portion at and states it requires impermissible hindsight and lacks an articulated benefit for choosing this corner. However, as stated above, the combination of Lim ‘300 with Lee ‘959 results in a step portion at each corner, which means there is necessarily a step portion opposing the first ball assembly. Further, the “obvious to try” rationale was not applied in the rejection of claim 1, therefore this argument is moot.
Applicant further argues the currently applied prior art does not disclose an upper end of the housing opposing the step portion in the optical axis direction is lower than an upper end of the carrier in the optical axis direction because patent drawings are not to be relied on for particular dimensions or relative sizes where drawings are schematic and not stated to be to scale. However, examiner notes it has been held the drawings must be evaluated for what they reasonably disclose and suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Aslanian, 590 F.2d 911, 200 USPQ 500 (CCPA 1979), see MPEP 2125, and further it has been held that “the description of the article pictured can be relied on, in combination with the drawings, for what they would reasonably teach one of ordinary skill in the art.” In re Wright, 569 F.2d 1124, 193 USPQ 332 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP 2125. The drawings show the relative position of each element. Whether one element is higher or lower than another element has to do with relative position, not scale. There are no numerical ranges or values given for these positions. The drawings are not being relied upon for scale, but rather for the relative positions of the housing to the carrier. It is implicit from Figs. 2-4 of Lee ‘959, particularly Fig. 4, which shows the portion of housing 310 that opposes the step portion 120 (i.e., the corner of 310) being disposed below 510, where the carrier is being considered 210 and 510 together, that the upper end of the housing opposing the step portion is lower than an upper end of the carrier. Nevertheless, for the purpose of efficiently advancing prosecution, a new reference is now used to teach this limitation. See rejection below.
Regarding independent claims 13 and 17, applicant argues that the limitations of the height of the step portion being lower than the height of the dimple is not taught by the currently applied prior art. Regarding applicant’s arguments against the different heights being implicit, the examiner disagrees. The purpose of the step portion of Lee ‘959 is to restrict the movement of the housing. The purpose of the dimple of Lim ‘204 is to prevent the bearings from being separated. None of the applied references show the height of the second ball assembly being exactly equal to the height of the housing. in particular, Lim ‘300, the camera module upon which these principles are being applied by the combination, shows the outer edge corner of the housing 210 to be lower than the second ball assembly, see Fig. 14. In order for the step portion and the dimple to actually perform their intended functions, it is reasonably suggested that they would necessarily have different heights. Regarding applicant’s arguments against it being obvious to try to have the step portion lower than the dimple, the examine disagrees. Applicant states that “reducing any continuous dimensional relationship to ‘same, higher, or lower’ would render every relative-dimension limitation per se obvious; that is not the law.” It is applicant’s own claim language that requires the surface of the step portion to be lower than the bottom surface of the dimple – a positional relationship which truly only has three possibilities. Either the step portion surface can be higher, lower, or at the same height as the bottom surface of the dimple. There are no other possibilities. There are no numerical values or ranges provided as to the heights of these elements, which would have an infinite number of possibilities. Applicant is invited to provide numerical values or ranges as to the heights of the step portion and dimple surfaces in order to change the limitation from one which only has three possibilities to one which has an infinite number of possibilities. Applicant states there is no problem in the art whose recognized solution is making the step-portion surface lower than the dimple bottom and no predictable benefit from that particular ordering. However, the purpose of the step portion of Lee ‘959 is to restrict the movement of the housing. The purpose of the dimple of Lim ‘204 is to prevent the bearings from being separated. As can be seen in Fig. 14 of Lim ‘300, the height of the outer corner edge of the housing which would oppose the step portion that opposes the first ball assembly is lower than the height of the second ball assembly. The articulated problem and solution is to restrict the movement of the housing (Lee ‘959) and to prevent the ball bearings of the second ball assembly from being separated (Lim ‘204). Therefore, it would be obvious to have the surface of the step portion lower than the bottom surface of the dimple. A modified Fig. 14 of Lim ‘300 is reproduced below for applicant’s convenience.
PNG
media_image1.png
805
831
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 16 only states that "the surface of the step portion and the bottom surface of the dimple are lower than the upper surface of the case." Claim 13, upon which claim 16 is already dependent, already states that "the surface of the step portion and the bottom surface of the dimple are each lower than an upper surface of a remaining portion of the case in the optical axis direction." All the limitations of claim 16 have been stated already in claim 13. In fact, the limitations of claim 16 appear to broaden the limitations already set forth in claim 13, since claim 16 does not specify "a remaining portion of the case" or that this is measured "in the optical axis direction".
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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) 1-5 and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lim et al. (US 20230138300 A1), hereinafter Lim '300, in view of Lee (KR 20180033959 A), hereinafter Lee '959, and further in view of Park (KR 20160021562 A).
Regarding independent claim 1, Lim ‘300 discloses a camera module, comprising:
a lens module (250; Fig. 14; ¶0125) comprising a lens barrel (inner part of 250 directly accommodating the lenses; Fig. 14) accommodating a plurality of lenses (251; Fig. 14; ¶0125) disposed along an optical axis (Fig. 14), and a lens holder (outer part of 250 accommodating the lens barrel with lenses; Fig. 14) coupled to the lens barrel (Fig. 14);
a carrier (230; Fig. 14; ¶0125) accommodating the lens module (250) (Fig. 14);
a first driver (215, 235; Fig. 14; ¶0127) configured to provide a driving force to move the lens module (250) in an optical axis direction (¶0127-¶0128);
a housing (210) accommodating the carrier (230) (Fig. 14);
a first ball assembly (223; Fig. 14; ¶0128) and a second ball assembly (221; Fig. 14; ¶0128) spaced apart from each other in a diagonal direction (Fig. 14; ¶0130) of the housing (210; Fig. 14; ¶0125), and configured to guide the lens module (250) as the lens module (250) moves in the optical axis direction (Fig. 14; ¶0128); and
a case (270; Fig. 14; ¶0125) coupled to the housing (210) (Fig. 14).
Lim ‘300 does not disclose the case comprises a step portion opposing the first ball assembly in the optical axis direction, a surface of the step portion being lower1 than an upper surface of a remaining portion of the case in the optical axis direction, and an upper end of the housing opposing the step portion in the optical axis direction is lower than an upper end of the carrier in the optical axis direction.
However, Lee ‘959 teaches a similar camera module with a lens module (¶0026), a housing (310; Fig. 2; ¶0044), a carrier (210, 510; Fig. 2; ¶0070), and a case (100; Fig. 2; ¶0070), wherein the case (100) comprises a step portion (120; Figs. 2-3; ¶0076), a surface of the step portion (120) being lower than an upper surface of a remaining portion of the case (100) in the optical axis direction (Figs. 2-4). The step portions 120 are disposed at every corner, therefore with this combination there is necessarily a step portion opposing the first ball assembly of Lim ‘300 in the optical axis direction.
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 Seo to incorporate the step portion in the case as taught by Lee ‘959 for the purpose of restricting movement of the housing (¶0076 of Lee ‘959).
Lee ‘959 does not explicitly disclose the upper end of the housing opposing the step portion in the optical axis direction is lower than an upper end of the carrier in the optical axis direction.
However, Park teaches a similar camera module with a lens module (¶0006), a housing (210; Fig. 2; ¶0027), a carrier (110; Fig. 2; ¶0027), and a case (300; Fig. 2; ¶0027), wherein the case (300) comprises a step portion (301; Fig. 1; ¶0032), a surface of the step portion (301) being lower than an upper surface of a remaining portion of the case (300) in the optical axis direction (Figs. 1-4), and an upper end of the housing (210) opposing the step portion (301) in the optical axis direction is lower than an upper end of the carrier (110) in the optical axis direction (Fig. 4).
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 Lim ‘300 in view of Lee ‘959 to incorporate the upper end of the housing opposing the step portion in the optical axis direction being lower than an upper end of the carrier in the optical axis direction as taught by Park for the purpose of having a lens driving device for a camera module that is miniaturized, has a simplified manufacturing process, and is low-cost (¶0004 of Park).
Regarding claim 2, Lim ‘300 in view of Lee ‘959 and further in view of Park discloses the camera module of claim 1, as set forth above. Neither Lim ‘300 nor Lee ‘959 disclose the step portion has a quadrangular cross-section perpendicular to the optical axis. Lee ‘959 teaches the step portion (120) has a triangular cross-section perpendicular to the optical axis (Fig. 1).
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to make the step portion have a quadrangular cross-section, since it has been held that a mere change in shape of an element is generally recognized as being with in the level of ordinary skill in the art when the change in shape is not significant to the function of the combination. In re Dailey 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
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 Lim ‘300 in view of Lee ‘959 and further in view of Park, to incorporate the step portion having a quadrangular cross-section for the purpose of restricting movement of the housing (¶0076 of Lee ‘959).
Regarding claim 3, Lim ‘300 in view of Lee ‘959 and further in view of Park discloses the camera module of claim 1, as set forth above. Lim ‘300 does not disclose the step portion is connected to an edge of the case.
However, Lee ‘959 teaches the step portion (120) is connected to an edge of the case (100) (Figs. 1-3).
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 Lim ‘300 to incorporate the step portion in the case as taught by Lee ‘959 for the purpose of restricting movement of the housing (¶0076 of Lee).
Regarding claim 4, Lim ‘300 in view of Lee ‘959 and further in view of Park discloses the camera module of claim 1. Lim ‘300 further discloses a number of balls in the first ball assembly (223) is different from a number of balls in the second ball assembly (221) (Fig. 14).
Regarding claim 5, Lim ‘300 in view of Lee ‘959 and further in view of Park discloses the camera module of claim 1, as set forth above. Lim ‘300 further discloses the lens barrel is disposed between the first ball assembly (223) and the second ball assembly (221) (Fig. 14).
Regarding claim 11, Lim ‘300 in view of Lee ‘959 and further in view of Park discloses the camera module of claim 1, as set forth above. Lim ‘300 further discloses the carrier (230) comprises guide grooves (230b, 230a; Fig. 14; ¶0129-¶0130) configured to guide movements of the first ball assembly (223) and the second ball assembly (221) (Fig. 14; ¶0129-¶0130).
Regarding claim 12, Lim ‘300 in view of Lee ‘959 and further in view of Park discloses the camera module of claim 11, as set forth above. Lim ‘300 further discloses the first driver (215, 235) is one of first drivers configured to provide driving forces to move the lens module in the optical axis direction (¶0127-¶0128), the first drivers (215, 235) comprise first magnets (235; Fig. 15; ¶0127) and first coils (215; Fig. 14; ¶0127), the first magnets (235) are disposed on side surfaces of the carrier (230) (Figs. 14-15; ¶0127) in which the guide grooves (230a, 230b) are formed (Fig. 15), and the first coils (215) oppose the first magnets (235) (¶0127).
Claim(s) 6 and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lim '300 (US 20230138300 A1) in view of Lee '959 (KR 20180033959 A), further in view of Park (KR 20160021562 A), and further in view of Seo et al. (US 20210173224 A1), hereinafter Seo.
Regarding claim 6, Lim ‘300 in view of Lee ‘959 and further in view of Park discloses the camera module of claim 1, as set forth above. Lim ‘300 further discloses a second driver (225, 255; Figs. 14-15; ¶0131) configured to provide a driving force to move the lens module (250) (¶0131); and a third driver (227, 257; Figs. 14-15; ¶0132) configured to provide a driving force to move the lens module (250) (¶0132). Neither Lim ‘300 nor Lee ‘959 disclose a guide member disposed in the carrier and configured to be movable together with the lens module in the optical axis direction.
However, Seo teaches a similar camera module comprising a lens module (1500, 1700; Fig. 2; ¶0097), a carrier (1300; Fig. 2; ¶0076), a housing (1100; Fig. 2; ¶0060), a case (1100; Fig. 2; ¶0060), a first and second ball assembly (1370; Fig. 2; ¶0083) and a first, second, and third driver (1320/1330, 1720/1760, 1420/1460; Fig. 2; ¶0078, ¶0104), and further comprising a guide member (1400; Fig. 2; ¶0097) disposed in the carrier (1300) and configured to be movable together with the lens module (1500, 1700) in the optical axis direction (Fig. 2; ¶0097-¶0098).
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 Lim ‘300 in view of Lee ‘959 and further in view of Park to incorporate the guide member of Seo for the purpose of providing movement in the x- and y-directions for shake correction (¶0099 of Seo).
Regarding claim 8, Lim ‘300 in view of Lee ‘959, further in view of Park, and further in view of Seo discloses the camera module of claim 6, as set forth above. Neither Lim ‘300 nor Lee ‘959 disclose each of the lens holder and the guide member comprises a first rolling groove having a length in a first direction perpendicular to the optical axis.
However, Seo further teaches each of the lens holder (1600, 1700) and the guide member (1400) comprises a first rolling groove (1675; Fig. 2; ¶0101) having a length in a first direction perpendicular to the optical axis (Fig. 2; ¶0101).
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 Lim ‘300 in view of Lee ‘959 and further in view of Park to incorporate the guide member of Seo for the purpose of providing movement in the x- and y-directions for shake correction (¶0099 of Seo).
Regarding claim 9, Lim ‘300 in view of Lee ‘959, further in view of Park, and further in view of Seo discloses the camera module of claim 8, as set forth above. Neither Lim ‘300 nor Lee ‘959 disclose each of the guide member and the carrier comprises a second rolling groove having a length in a second direction perpendicular to the optical axis.
However, Seo further discloses each of the guide member (1400) and the carrier (1300) comprises a second rolling groove (1475; Fig. 2; ¶0115) having a length in a second direction perpendicular to the optical axis (Fig. 2; ¶0115).
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 Lim ‘300 in view of Lee ‘959 and further in view of Park to incorporate the guide member of Seo for the purpose of providing movement in the x- and y-directions for shake correction (¶0099 of Seo).
Regarding claim 10, Lim ‘300 in view of Lee ‘959, further in view of Park, and further in view of Seo discloses the camera module of claim 6, as set forth above. Lim ‘300 further discloses the second driver (225, 255) comprises a second magnet (255) and a second coil (225) (Figs. 14-15; ¶0131), the third driver (227, 257) comprises a third magnet (257) and a third coil (227) (Figs. 14-15; ¶0132), the second magnet (255) is mounted on the lens holder (150) (Figs. 14-15; ¶0131). Neither Lim ‘300 nor Lee ‘959 disclose the third magnet is mounted on the guide member.
However, Seo teaches the second driver (1720, 1760) comprises a second magnet (1720; Fig. 2; ¶0104) and a second coil (1760; Fig. 2; ¶0121), the third driver (1420, 1460) comprises a third magnet (1420; Fig. 2; ¶0121) and a third coil (1460; Fig. 2; ¶0121), the second magnet (1720) is mounted on the lens holder (1600, 1700) (Fig. 2), and the third magnet (1420) is mounted on the guide member (1400) (Fig. 2).
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 Lim ‘300 in view of Lee ‘959 and further in view of Park to incorporate the guide member of Seo for the purpose of providing movement in the x- and y-directions for shake correction (¶0099 of Seo).
Claim(s) 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lim '300 (US 20230138300 A1) in view of Lee '959 (KR 20180033959 A), further in view of Park (KR 20160021562 A), further in view of Seo (US 20210173224 A1), and further in view of Lee (US 20220407989 A1), hereinafter Lee '989.
Regarding claim 7, Lim ‘300 in view of Lee ‘959, further in view of Park, and further in view of Seo discloses the camera module of claim 6, as set forth above. Neither Lim ‘300, Lee ‘959, nor Seo disclose a connection magnet disposed between the lens holder and the carrier.
However, Lee ‘989 teaches a similar camera module with a lens module (¶0018) and a lens holder (110; Fig. 4; ¶0061), which further comprises a connection magnet (180; Fig. 4; ¶0061) disposed under the lens holder (110) (Fig. 4; ¶0086).
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 Lim ‘300 in view of Lee ‘959, further in view of Park, and further in view of Seo to incorporate the connection magnet of Lee ‘989 for the purpose of providing feedback during the auto-focus operation.
Claim(s) 13-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lim '300 (US 20230138300 A1) in view of Lee '959 (KR 20180033959 A) and further in view of Lim et al. (US 20160154204 A1), hereinafter Lim '204.
Regarding independent claim 13, Lim ‘300 discloses a camera module, comprising:
a housing (210; Fig. 14; ¶0125) having an internal space (Fig. 14);
a carrier (230; Fig. 14; ¶0125) disposed in the internal space of the housing (210) (Fig. 14) and configured to be movable in an optical axis direction (Fig. 14; ¶0128);
a lens module (250; Fig. 14; ¶0125) disposed in the carrier (230) (Fig. 14), the lens module (250) comprising a plurality of lenses (251; Fig. 14; ¶0125);
a first ball assembly (223; Fig. 14; ¶0128) and a second ball assembly (221; Fig. 14; ¶0128) disposed between the carrier (230) and the housing (210) and spaced apart from each other in a diagonal direction of the housing (210) (Fig. 14); and
a case (270; Fig. 14; ¶0125) coupled to the housing (210) (Fig. 14), and
wherein a number of balls in the first ball assembly (223) is less than a number of balls in the second ball assembly (221) (Fig. 14).
Lim ‘300 does not disclose the case comprises a step portion opposing the first ball assembly in the optical axis direction, and a dimple formed in an upper surface of the case and opposing the second ball assembly in the optical axis direction, and wherein a surface of the step portion opposing the first ball assembly is lower than a bottom surface of the dimple opposing the second ball assembly in the optical axis direction, and the surface of the step portion and the bottom surface of the dimple are each lower than an upper surface of a remaining portion of the case in the optical axis direction.
However, Lee ‘959 teaches a similar camera module with a lens module (¶0026), a housing (310; Fig. 2; ¶0044), a carrier (210, 510; Fig. 2; ¶0070), and a case (100; Fig. 2; ¶0070), wherein the case (100) comprises a step portion (120; Figs. 2-3; ¶0076), and an upper end of the housing (310) opposing the step portion (120) in the optical axis direction is lower than an upper end of the carrier (210, 510) in the optical axis direction (Figs. 2, 10-11), and the surface of the step portion (120) is lower than an upper surface of a remaining portion of the case (100) in the optical axis direction (Figs. 2-4). The step portions 120 are disposed at every corner, therefore with this combination it is obvious for there to be a step portion opposing the first ball assembly of Lim ‘300 in the optical axis direction.
Additionally, Lim ‘204 teaches a similar camera module with a lens module (20; Fig. 1; ¶0025), a housing (30; Fig. 1; ¶0040), a case (10; Fig. 1; ¶0030), and first and second ball assemblies (57; Fig. 1; ¶0034), wherein the case (10) comprises a dimple (11; Fig. 2; ¶0034) formed in an upper surface of the case (10) (Fig. 1; ¶0060) opposing the second ball assembly (57) in the optical axis direction (Fig. 1; ¶0060), and the bottom surface of the dimple (11) is lower than an upper surface of a remaining portion of the case (10) in the optical axis direction (¶0060).
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 Lim ‘300 to incorporate the step portion in the case as taught by Lee for the purpose of restricting movement of the housing (¶0076 of Lee ‘959). Further, 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 Lim ‘300 in view of Lee ‘959 to incorporate the dimple opposite the second ball assembly as taught by Lim ‘204 for the purpose of preventing the ball bearings from being separated (¶0034 of Lim ‘204).
There are only three possibilities regarding the surfaces of the step portion and the dimple – that the surfaces are at the same height, the step portion surface is lower than the dimple surface, or the dimple surface is lower than the step portion surface. It has been held that where there are only a finite number of predictable identifiable solutions, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to try the known options within his or her technical grasp. KSR International Co. v Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). 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 made the surface of the step portion lower than the bottom surface of the dimple for the purpose of restricting movement of the housing and preventing the ball bearings from being separated.
Regarding claim 14, Lim ‘300 in view of Lee ‘959 and further in view of Lim ‘204 discloses the camera module of claim 13, as set forth above. Neither Lim ‘300 nor Lim ‘204 disclose the step portion is connected to an edge of the case.
However, Lee ‘959 teaches the step portion (120) is connected to an edge of the case (100) (Figs. 1-3).
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 Lim ‘300 to incorporate the step portion in the case as taught by Lee ‘959 for the purpose of restricting movement of the housing (¶0076 of Lee ‘959).
Regarding claim 15, Lim ‘300 in view of Lee ‘959 and further in view of Lim ‘204 discloses the camera module of claim 13, as set forth above. Lim ‘300 does not disclose a cross-sectional area of the step portion perpendicular to the optical axis direction is larger than a cross-sectional area of the dimple perpendicular to the optical axis direction.
However, Lee ‘959 teaches a cross-sectional area of the step portion (120) perpendicular to the optical axis direction (Fig. 1) and Lim ‘300 teaches a cross-sectional area of the dimple (11) perpendicular to the optical axis direction (Fig. 1). When combined, the cross-sectional area of the step portion would be larger than a cross-sectional area of the dimple.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing d)ate of the claimed invention to have modified Lim ‘300 to incorporate the step portion in the case as taught by Lee ‘959 for the purpose of restricting movement of the housing (¶0076 of Lee ‘959). Further, 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 Lim ‘300 in view of Lee ‘959 to incorporate the dimple of Lim ‘204 for the purpose of preventing the ball bearings from being separated (¶0034 of Lim ‘204).
Regarding claim 16, Lim ‘300 in view of Lee ‘959 and further in view of Lim ‘204 discloses the camera module of claim 13, as set forth above. Lim ‘300 does not disclose the surface of the step portion and the bottom surface of the dimple are lower than the upper surface of the case.
However, Lee ‘959 teaches the surface of the step portion (120) is lower than the upper surface of the case (100) (Fig. 1). Additionally, Lim ‘204 teaches the bottom surface of the dimple (11) is lower than the upper surface of the case (10) (Fig. 1; ¶0034).
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 Lim ‘300 to incorporate the step portion in the case as taught by Lee for the purpose of restricting movement of the housing (¶0076 of Lee ‘959). Further, 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 Lim ‘300 and Lee ‘959 to incorporate the dimple of Lim ‘204 for the purpose of preventing the ball bearings from being separated (¶0034 of Lim ‘204).
Regarding independent claim 17, Lim ‘300 discloses a camera module, comprising:
a lens module (250; Fig. 14; ¶0125) comprising a lens barrel (inner part of 250 directly accommodating the lenses; Fig. 14) accommodating a plurality of lenses (251; Fig. 14; ¶0125) disposed along an optical axis (Fig. 14), and a lens holder (outer part of 250 accommodating the lens barrel with lenses; Fig. 14) coupled to the lens barrel (Fig. 14);
a carrier (230; Fig. 14; ¶0125) accommodating the lens module (250) (Fig. 14);
a first driver (215, 235; Fig. 14; ¶0127) configured to apply a driving force to the carrier (230) to move the carrier (230) and the lens module (250) accommodated in the carrier (230) in an optical axis direction (¶0127-¶0128);
a housing (210) accommodating the carrier (230) (Fig. 14);
a first ball assembly (223; Fig. 14; ¶0128) and a second ball assembly (221; Fig. 14; ¶0128) spaced apart from each other in a diagonal direction (Fig. 14; ¶0130) of the housing (210; Fig. 14; ¶0125), and configured to guide the carrier (230) as the carrier (230) moves in the optical axis direction (Fig. 14; ¶0128); and
a case (270; Fig. 14; ¶0125) coupled to the housing (210) (Fig. 14) and configured to retain the first ball assembly (223) and the second ball assembly (221) in the camera module (Fig. 14).
Lim ‘300 does not disclose the case comprises: a first portion opposing the first ball assembly in the optical axis direction and having a first height in the optical axis direction; and a second portion opposing the second ball assembly in the optical axis direction and having a second height in the optical axis direction different from the first height in the optical axis direction, the first height and the second height each being less than a third height of an upper surface of a remaining portion of the case in the optical axis direction.
However, Lee ‘959 teaches a similar camera module with a lens module (¶0026), a housing (310; Fig. 2; ¶0044), a carrier (210, 510; Fig. 2; ¶0070), and a case (100; Fig. 2; ¶0070), wherein the case (100) comprises a first portion (120; Figs. 2-3; ¶0076) having a first height in the optical axis direction (Fig. 1), the first height being less than a third height of an upper surface of a remaining portion of the case (100) in the optical axis direction (Figs. 2-4).
Additionally, Lim ‘204 teaches a similar camera module with a lens module (20; Fig. 1; ¶0025), a housing (30; Fig. 1; ¶0040), a case (10; Fig. 1; ¶0030), and first and second ball assemblies (57; Fig. 1; ¶0034), wherein the case (10) comprises a second portion (11; Fig. 2; ¶0034) opposing the second ball assembly (57) in the optical axis direction (Fig. 1) and having a second height in the optical axis direction (inherent), the second height being less than a third height of an upper surface of a remaining portion of the case in the optical axis direction (¶0060).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing d)ate of the claimed invention to have modified Lim ‘300 to incorporate the first portion in the case as taught by Lee ‘959 for the purpose of restricting movement of the housing (¶0076 of Lee ‘959). Further, 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 Lim ‘300 in view of Lee ‘959 to incorporate the second portion opposing the second ball assembly as taught by Lim ‘204 for the purpose of preventing the ball bearings from being separated (¶0034 of Lim ‘204).
There are only two possibilities regarding the heights of the first portion and the second portion – that the first height and second height are the same, or the first height and second height are different. It has been held that where there are only a finite number of predictable identifiable solutions, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to try the known options within his or her technical grasp. KSR International Co. v Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). 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 made the first height different from the second height for the purpose of restricting movement of the housing and preventing the ball bearings from being separated.
Regarding claim 18, Lim ‘300 in view of Lee ‘959 and further in view of Lim ‘204 discloses the camera module of claim 17, as set forth above. Lim ‘300 does not disclose the first portion of the case opposing the first ball assembly in the optical axis direction is a step portion having the first height in the optical axis direction, the second portion of the case opposing the second ball assembly in the optical axis direction is a dimple formed in an upper surface of the case and having a bottom surface having the second height in the optical axis direction, the first height of the step portion in the optical axis direction is less than the second height of the bottom surface of the dimple in the optical axis direction, and the first height of the step portion in the optical axis direction and the second height of the bottom surface of the dimple in the optical axis direction are less than the third height in the optical axis of the upper surface of the remaining portion of the case.
However, Lee ‘959 teaches the first portion (120) of the case (100) is a step portion (120; Figs. 2-3; ¶0076) having the first height in the optical axis direction (Figs. 2-3), and the first height of the step portion (120) in the optical axis direction is less than the third height in the optical axis of the upper surface of the remaining portion of the case (100) (Figs. 1-3).
Additionally, Lim ‘204 teaches the second portion (11) of the case (10) opposing the second ball assembly (57) in the optical axis direction is a dimple (11; Fig. 2; ¶0034) formed in an upper surface of the case (10) and having a bottom surface having the second height in the optical axis direction (¶0034), and the second height of the bottom surface of the dimple (11) in the optical axis direction is less than the third height in the optical axis of the upper surface of the remaining portion of the case (10) (Fig. 2; ¶0034).
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 Lim ‘300 to incorporate the step portion in the case as taught by Lee ‘959 for the purpose of restricting movement of the housing (¶0076 of Lee ‘959). Further, 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 Lim ‘300 in view of Lee ‘959 to incorporate the dimple of Lim ‘204 for the purpose of preventing the ball bearings from being separated (¶0034 of Lim ‘204).
There are only three possibilities regarding the heights of the step portion and the dimple – that the first height and second height are the same, the first height is less than the second height, or the second height is less than the first height. It has been held that where there are only a finite number of predictable identifiable solutions, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to try the known options within his or her technical grasp. KSR International Co. v Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). 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 made the first height less than the second height for the purpose of restricting movement of the housing and preventing the ball bearings from being separated.
Regarding claim 19, Lim ‘300 in view of Lee ‘959 and further in view of Lim ‘204 discloses camera module of claim 17, as set forth above. Lim ‘300 does not disclose the first portion of the case has a quadrangular cross-section perpendicular to the optical axis, and the second portion of the case has a circular cross-section perpendicular to the optical axis.
Lee ‘959 teaches the step portion (120) has a triangular cross-section perpendicular to the optical axis (Fig. 1).
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to make the step portion have a quadrangular cross-section, since it has been held that a mere change in shape of an element is generally recognized as being with in the level of ordinary skill in the art when the change in shape is not significant to the function of the combination. In re Dailey 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Additionally, Lim ‘204 teaches the second portion (11) of the case (10) has a circular cross-section perpendicular to the optical axis (Fig. 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing d)ate of the claimed invention to have modified Lim ‘300 to incorporate the step portion in the case as taught by Lee ‘959 for the purpose of restricting movement of the housing (¶0076 of Lee ‘959). Further, 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 Lim ‘300 in view of Lee ‘959 to incorporate the dimple of Lim ‘204 for the purpose of preventing the ball bearings from being separated (¶0034 of Lim ‘204).
Claim(s) 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lim '300 (US 20230138300 A1) in view of Lee '959 (KR 20180033959 A), further in view of Lim '204 (US 20160154204 A1), and further in view of Seo (US 20210173224 A1).
Regarding claim 20, Lim ‘300 in view of Lee ‘959 and further in view of Lim ‘204 discloses the camera module of claim 17, as set forth above. Lim ‘300 further discloses a second driver (225, 255; Figs. 14-15; ¶0131) configured to apply a driving force to the lens module (250) (¶0131) to move the lens module (250) relative to the carrier (230) in a first direction perpendicular to the optical axis direction (¶0131); and a third driver (227, 257; Figs. 14-15; ¶0132) configured to apply a driving force to move the lens module (250) relative to the carrier (230) in a second direction perpendicular to both the first direction and the optical axis direction (¶0132).
Neither Lim ‘300, Lee ’959, nor Lim ‘204 disclose a guide member disposed between the lens module and the carrier, wherein the second driver moves the lens module relative to the guide member and the third driver moves the guide member relative to the carrier.
However, Seo teaches a similar camera module comprising a lens module (1500, 1700; Fig. 2; ¶0097), a carrier (1300; Fig. 2; ¶0076), a housing (1100; Fig. 2; ¶0060), a case (1100; Fig. 2; ¶0060), a first and second ball assembly (1370; Fig. 2; ¶0083) and a first driver (1320/1330; Fig. 2; ¶0078, ¶0104), and further comprising a guide member (1400; Fig. 2; ¶0097) disposed in the carrier (1300) and configured to be movable together with the lens module (1500, 1700) in the optical axis direction (Fig. 2; ¶0097-¶0098), a second driver (1720, 1760; Fig. 2; ¶0104) configured to apply a driving force to the lens module (1500, 1700) to move the lens module (1500, 1700) relative to the guide member (1400) and the carrier (1300) in a first direction perpendicular to the optical axis direction (Fig. 2; ¶0098); and a third driver (1420, 1460; Fig. 2; ¶0104) configured to apply a driving force to the guide member (1400) to move the lens module (1500, 1700) and the guide member (1400) relative to the carrier (1300) in a second direction perpendicular to both the first direction and the optical axis direction (Fig. 1; ¶0107).
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 Lim ‘300 in view of Lee ‘959 and further in view of Lim ‘204 to incorporate the guide member of Seo for the purpose of providing movement in the x- and y-directions for shake correction (¶0099 of Seo).
Examiner’s Comment
The examiner notes that during the interview held on May 12th, 2026, the examiner suggested an amendment to overcome the rejection, which does not appear to have been implemented. Examiner suggests again that an independent claim including all of the following distinguishing features in combination with the other features of the current independent claims – the first and second ball assemblies being on diagonal opposite corners, the first and second ball assemblies having a different number of balls, only one step portion wherein the step portion opposes the first ball assembly, only one dimple wherein the dimple opposes the second ball assembly, and the step portion height being lower than the dimple height – would likely render the combination of currently applied references no longer obvious. This was originally noted during the interview held on May 12th, 2026. Examiner additionally notes that further search and consideration would still be required.
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 NATASHA NIGAM whose telephone number is (571)270-5423. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9-4.
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 September 2nd, 2026
/George G. King/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
1 Throughout the claims, no frame of reference for the terms “upper” and “lower” is established besides being in the direction of the optical axis. Therefore the terms “upper” and “lower” are not interpreted to mean a particular direction besides being opposite to each other in the direction of the optical axis.
Prosecution Insights