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 10/15/2025 has been entered. The amendments have overcome the 112(b) rejections previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 08/06/2025.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/15/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments in combination with the amendments regarding the limitation “a first ball assembly and a second ball assembly spaces apart from each other in a diagonal direction of the housing” are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made in view of Lim ‘300 et al. (US 20230138300 A1).
Regarding applicant’s arguments that there is no teaching or suggestion of the limitation “a step portion opposing the first ball assembly in the optical axis direction”, applicant’s arguments have been fully considered and are appreciated. However, the examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner apologizes for not making the rejection of this limitation more clear. Lee ‘959 (KR 20180033959 A) teaches the case (100) having a plurality of step portions (120) at each corner of the case (Figs. 1-2). Therefore, when applied in combination with a primary reference that has a first and second ball assembly disposed at the corners – for example in primary reference Seo of the prior rejection – the step portion would accordingly oppose the first ball assembly in the optical axis direction. In the event that not all the step portions of Lee ‘959 are incorporated, there are a limited number of corners on which the step portion can be disposed – either opposing the first ball assembly or not opposing the first ball assembly. 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 their 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 for the combination to have the step portion opposing the first ball assembly. This applies to the new rejection over Lim ‘300 in view of Lee ‘959 as well.
PNG
media_image1.png
810
710
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding applicant’s arguments against combining the step portion with a primary reference that does not have a step portion, applicant’s arguments have been fully considered and are appreciated. However, the examiner respectfully disagrees.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). In this case, the motive for the combination is found in the teaching reference, not the primary reference, in order to make further improvements to the device. Specifically, the step portion is incorporated for the purpose of restricting movement of the housing (¶0076 of Lee ‘959).
In response to applicant's argument that the combination would destroy the intent of the primary reference, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). It is further noted that “[a] person of ordinary skill in the art is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.” and in addition it has been further held that "[I]n many cases a person of ordinary skill will be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle" and taking into account "the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ." KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (U.S. 2007), see MPEP 2141.
Regarding applicant’s arguments that there is no teaching that “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”, applicant’s arguments have been fully considered and are appreciated. However, the examiner respectfully disagrees. Lee ‘959 teaches the first portion (120) which is a step portion. Lim ‘204 teaches the second portion (11) which is a dimple. Each of these clearly have different heights with respect to their own case – the step portion clearly protrudes down more from the case in Lee ‘959 than the dimple protrudes down from the case in Lim ‘204. Therefore, the first and second portions have different heights. Further, if assuming the combination does not result in the first and second portions having different heights, there are only two possibilities regarding how the heights can relate to each other in this combination: that the first and second heights are the same, or that they 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 their technical grasp. KSR International Co. v Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case the first and second portions oppose first and second ball assemblies, which each have a different number of balls. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the first and second heights to be different for the purpose of preventing the ball bearings from being separated and for restricting the movement of the housing.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-12 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1 and 17 recite the limitation "a first ball assembly and a second ball assembly spaced apart from each other in a diagonal direction of the housing, and configured to guide the lens module/carrier as the lens module/carrier moves in the optical axis direction; a housing accommodating the carrier" in lines 7-10 of each claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, the examiner assumes "a first ball assembly and a second ball assembly spaced apart from each other in a diagonal direction of a housing, and configured to guide the lens module/carrier as the lens module/carrier moves in the optical axis direction; the housing accommodating the carrier”. Claims 2-12 are dependent on claim 1, and claims 18-20 are dependent on claim 17, and therefore inherit the same issues.
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.
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 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);
a housing (210) accommodating the carrier (230) (Fig. 14); 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, 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), 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). 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.
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).
Regarding claim 2, Lim ‘300 in view of Lee ‘959 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 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).
Regarding claim 3, Lim ‘300 in view of Lee ‘959 discloses the camera module of claim 1, as set forth above. Seo 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 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 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 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 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) and further in view of Seo et al. (US 20210173224 A1), hereinafter Seo.
Regarding claim 6, Lim ‘300 in view of Lee ‘959 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 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 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 discloses 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 opposing the second ball assembly in the optical axis direction, and 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.
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). 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) opposing the second ball assembly (57) in the optical axis direction (Fig. 1).
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 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 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 an upper surface of the case in the optical axis direction.
However, Lee ‘959 teaches the surface of the step portion (120) is lower than an upper surface of the case (100) in the optical axis direction (Fig. 1).
Additionally, Lim ‘204 teaches the bottom surface of the dimple (11) is lower than an upper surface of the case (10) in the optical axis direction (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 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);
a housing (210) accommodating the carrier (230) (Fig. 14); 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.
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).
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).
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 of 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 a third height in the optical axis of the upper surface of a 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 a third height in the optical axis of the upper surface of a 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 a third height in the optical axis of the upper surface of a 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).
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 8-5.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ricky Mack can be reached at (571)272-2333. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/NATASHA NIGAM/Examiner, Art Unit 2872 January 5th, 2026
/George G. King/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872