Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
The amended claims submitted February 9, 2026 in response to the office action mailed November 4, 2025 are under consideration. Claims 1-8, 10-11 and 13-20 are pending, of which claims 1-8, 10-11 and 13 are elected, and claims 14-20 are withdrawn as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
Claims 9 and 12 are cancelled.
Election/Restriction
During a telephone conversation with Mark E. Wallerson on October 25, 2025 a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute the invention of group I, claims 1-13. The election/restriction requirement was incorporated into the office action mailed November 4, 2025. Although applicant failed to specifically affirm this election in the reply to the previous Office action, the applicant did indicate that Claims 14-20 are withdrawn on page 5 of 7 of the remarks filed February 9, 2026.
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
Drawings
The objection to the drawings of the previous office action have been overcome by the amendments to the claims which cancelled claim 12.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The amendments to the claims overcome some of the 35 USC §112 rejections of the previous office action, however, the following rejections are either maintained or newly introduced in light of the amendments.
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 8, 10-11 and 13 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.
Regarding claim 8, the limitation “among the plurality of lenses, a group of lenses excluding the first lens is configured to move in a first direction parallel to a direction perpendicular to a surface of the image sensor” is indefinite because it recites a desired function without any of the structures that would be needed to achieve that function. Notwithstanding the permissible instances, the use of functional language in a claim may fail "to provide a clear-cut indication of the scope of the subject matter embraced by the claim" and thus be indefinite. In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210, 213 (CCPA 1971). For example, when claims merely recite a description of a problem to be solved or a function or result achieved by the invention, the boundaries of the claim scope may be unclear. Halliburton Energy Servs., Inc. v. M-I LLC, 514 F.3d 1244, 1255, 85 USPQ2d 1654, 1663 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (noting that the Supreme Court explained that a vice of functional claiming occurs "when the inventor is painstaking when he recites what has already been seen, and then uses conveniently functional language at the exact point of novelty") (quoting General Elec. Co. v. Wabash Appliance Corp., 304 U.S. 364, 371 (1938)); see also United Carbon Co. v. Binney & Smith Co., 317 U.S. 228, 234 (1942) (holding indefinite claims that recited substantially pure carbon black "in the form of commercially uniform, comparatively small, rounded smooth aggregates having a spongy or porous exterior"). See MPEP §2173.05(g). In the current instance, the claim requires that at least some of the lenses “are configured to move” however, the elements that would be needed to perform such a function are absent from both the claims and the specification. There are no lens holders, no lens drivers, no motors, no controls, no circuits, no supports or any other structures provided in the specification of claims that would enable the claimed function. Any lens is capable of being held by a lens holder of an appropriate design, where that lens holder can be part of an arrangement that allows the lens holder and the lens therein to be movable. Thus the components that are needed to perform the claimed function are not structures of the lens itself, such that it is entirely unclear what is meant by “among the plurality of lenses, a group of lenses excluding the first lens is configured to move” in terms of structural limitations on the recited claim elements.
From MPEP §2173.05(g) “Examiners should consider the following factors when examining claims that contain functional language to determine whether the language is ambiguous: (1) whether there is a clear cut indication of the scope of the subject matter covered by the claim; (2) whether the language sets forth well-defined boundaries of the invention or only states a problem solved or a result obtained; and (3) whether one of ordinary skill in the art would know from the claim terms what structure or steps are encompassed by the claim. These factors are examples of points to be considered when determining whether language is ambiguous and are not intended to be all inclusive or limiting.
In the current instance, (1) there is no clear cut indication of what properties a lens would need to have to be considered to be “configured to move” (2) the language only states a result obtained with no boundaries of how to obtain it (3) one of ordinary skill in the art would not know from the claim or the specification what structures are encompassed by the claim.
Appropriate correction is required.
Further regarding claim 8, the limitation “among the plurality of lenses, a group of lenses excluding the first lens” is indefinite for at least the following reasons. First, it is unclear whether or not applicant intended claim 8 to include all of the embodiments of Figs. 8, 9 and 10, or only Fig. 8. In Figs. 9 and 10 the “group of lenses” that move in a first direction parallel to a direction perpendicular to the surface of the image sensor consists of a single lens disposed farthest from the image sensor, or as stated in paragraph [0084]: “the autofocus (AF) operation and the optical image stabilization (OIS) operation may be performed by moving any one of the lenses LZ1, LZ2, LZ3, LZ4, LZ5, and LZ6.” Although it is commonplace to discuss a lens group that consists of a single lens, the claim is drawn to a “group of lenses”, plural, which would seem to preclude a lens group consisting of one lens element. Either an interpretation that excludes Figs. 9 and 10 or includes Figs. 9 and 10 would be consistent with the specification, and thus there is no way to disambiguate the intended meaning.
Secondly, “a group of lenses excluding the first lens is configured to move in a first direction parallel to a direction perpendicular to a surface of the image sensor” is indefinite because it is unclear exactly what is being excluded. Lenses in an optical system can be divided into groups, sub-groups and components for all kinds of different reasons. At a best guess, the examiner assumes that the applicant intended to limit the possible movement of the first lens to movements that are independent from the claimed group of lenses. However, the claim does not recite any of “wherein the first lens is fixed during auto-focusing”, “wherein the first lens group is stationary during auto-focusing and optical image stabilization” or “wherein a spacing between the group of lenses and the first lens changes during auto-focusing”. Thus, the group of lenses that excludes the first lens could be a group for some other reason, such as being on the opposite side of an aperture stop, having an infrared filtering property, being made of glass or any other reason an ordinary skilled artisan might have to designate a lens group. Taken literally, the claim merely requires that there exists a group of lenses that excludes the first lens, wherein said group of lenses is configured to move in a first direction parallel to a direction perpendicular to a surface of the image sensor. The remarks submitted February 9, 2026 make no mention of the amendment to claim 8, leaving the intended meaning even more ambiguous (although it would have been improper to read applicant’s arguments into the claim, had applicant provided any such guidance).
Claims 10-11 and 13 depend from claim 8 and inherit and do not mitigate the above indefiniteness issues from claim 8.
Regarding claims 10 and 13, the recitations (claim 10) “the group of lenses excluding the first lens is configured to move in a second direction substantially parallel to the surface of the image sensor” and (claim 13) “the second lens is configured to move in a second direction substantially parallel to the surface of the image sensor” are likewise functional limitations that are allegedly drawn to properties of the lenses, however, the elements that would be needed to perform such a function are absent from both the claims and the specification. There are no lens holders, no lens drivers, no motors, no controls, no circuits, no supports or any other structures provided in the specification of claims that would enable the claimed function. Any lens is capable of being held by a lens holder of an appropriate design, where that lens holder can be part of an arrangement that allows the lens holder and the lens therein to be movable. Thus, the components that are needed to perform the claimed function are not structures of the lens itself, such that it is entirely unclear what is meant by lenses being configured to move in the claimed manners for the same reasons as claim 8 above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-8, 10-11 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Migliaccio US 5,311,611 (hereafter Migliaccio).
Regarding claim 1, Migliaccio teaches “A camera module (see elements thereof that follow), comprising:
an image sensor (col. 2 line 64 to col. 3 line 2: “CCD array”);
a lens assembly (col. 2 line 64 to col. 3 line 2: “wide angle imaging ball lens”), disposed on the image sensor (col. 2 line 64 to col. 3 line 2: "It is a further object of the present invention to provide a wide angle imaging ball lens optically immersed with a fiber optic faceplate and coupled to a CCD array such that the lens provides a flat focal plane over an extended spectral range corresponding to the size of the surface of the CCD array to which the fiber optic faceplate is optically coupled."), and comprising a plurality of lenses (first element 6 and second element 12); and
an optical path member (fiber optic faceplate 22) disposed between the image sensor and the lens assembly (see Fig. 1 where the object-side is 2 and the image-side is 4 and thus 22 is between 12 and the CCD array, and col. 2 line 64 to col. 3 line 2 which explains that the purpose of the fiber optic plate is to map the curved plane of the image-side of the second lens element to a flat surface corresponding to the flat surface of a CCD.), the optical path member including either a plurality of optical fibers or a plurality of optical waveguides (bundles of optical fibers 28. Note that optical fibers are a type of optical waveguide, thus Migliaccio teaches both a plurality of optical fibers and a plurality of optical waveguides),
wherein the optical path member is configured to be at least partially in contact with a first surface of a first lens (22 is configured to be at least partially in contact with second element 12 because of their corresponding shapes see Fig. 1 and col. 5 lines 62-64: “interface between convex surface 16 of the second lens element 12 and concave surface 24 of the fiber optic faceplate 22 (third element).” See also col. 2 line 64 to col. 3 line 2: "It is a further object of the present invention to provide a wide angle imaging ball lens optically immersed with a fiber optic faceplate”) adjacent to the image sensor among the plurality of lenses of the lens assembly (second element 12 is adjacent to the image sensor among the lenses of the wide angle imaging ball lens).”
Regarding claim 2, Migliaccio teaches “The camera module of claim 1, wherein the optical path member is configured to be disposed directly on the image sensor (col. 5 lines 66 to col. 6 line 1: “the faceplate’s planar surface 26… mapped into a flat focal plane at planar surface 26.” Thus, 22 is configured to be disposed directly on a CCD in that the image-side surface thereof is planar and therefor could be disposed directly on the flat focal plane of the CCD.).”
Regarding claim 3, Migliaccio teaches “The camera module of claim 1, wherein:
a surface of the optical path member (concave surface 24 of the fiber optic faceplate 22) and the first surface of the first lens (convex surface 16 of the second lens element 12), which are at least partially in contact with each other (see Fig. 1 and claim 1 above), are configured to have opposite shapes (This is true in at least two ways. First, 24 is concave while 16 is convex, and thus they have opposite shapes. Secondly, as shown in Fig. 1, they have exactly opposite shapes in that they share an interface).”
Regarding claim 4, Migliaccio teaches “The camera module of claim 1, wherein the optical path member comprises a plurality of optical fibers (bundle of optical fibers 28).”
Regarding claim 5, Migliaccio teaches “The camera module of claim 4, wherein the optical fibers are configured to extend in parallel with a direction perpendicular to a surface of the image sensor (see Fig. 1).”
Regarding claim 6, Migliaccio teaches “The camera module of claim 1, wherein the optical path member comprises a plurality of optical waveguides (bundles of optical fibers 28. Note that optical fibers are a type of optical waveguide).”
Regarding claim 7, Migliaccio teaches “The camera module of claim 6, wherein the optical waveguides are configured to extend in parallel with a direction perpendicular to a surface of the image sensor (see Fig. 1).”
Regarding claim 8, Migliaccio teaches “The camera module of claim 1, wherein:
among the plurality of lenses, a group of lenses excluding the first lens (in Fig. 1 a diaphragm 18 with an aperture 20 can be considered to demarcate between a group of lenses consisting of first lens element 6 which excludes the second lens element 12 and a second group of lenses consisting of the second lens element 12.) is configured to move in a first direction parallel to a direction perpendicular to a surface of the image sensor (the lenses, including the group of lenses excluding the first lens, are configured to perform the claimed function because a user can easily move the entirety of the device in the claimed fashion).”
Regarding claim 10, Migliaccio teaches “The camera module of claim 9, wherein:
the group of lenses excluding the first lens is configured to move in a second direction substantially parallel to the surface of the image sensor (the group of lenses consisting of the first element 6 is configured to perform the claimed function because a user can easily move the entirety of the device in the claimed fashion. Note that the claim merely requires that the group of lenses excluding the first lens must be so configured, but does not actually recite that the first lens is stationary or that the group of lenses moves relative to the first lens.).”
Regarding claim 11, Migliaccio teaches “The camera module of claim 8, wherein the group of lenses excluding the first lens comprises a second lens disposed farthest from the image sensor among the plurality of lenses (first element 6 is configured to perform the claimed function because a user can easily move the entirety of the device in the claimed fashion.).”
Regarding claim 13, Migliaccio teaches “The camera module of claim 11, wherein:
the second lens is configured to move in a second direction substantially parallel to the surface of the image sensor (first element 6 is configured to perform the claimed function because a user can easily move the entirety of the device in the claimed fashion.).”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 8, 10-11 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kimura et al. US 2021/0165237 A1 (hereafter Kimura) in view of Chen US 7,426,342 B2 (cited in an IDS, hereafter Chen) and Migliaccio US 5,311,611 (hereafter Migliaccio).
Regarding claim 8, Kimura teaches (claim 1) “A camera module (imaging device 1, Figs. 1-8 and 19-20), comprising:
an image sensor (imaging element 11g as marked more clearly in Fig. 19);
a lens assembly (lens 16 and lens 231), disposed on the image sensor (see Fig. 20, lenses 16 and 231 are disposed on the image sensor in that 231 is directly on a stack on the image sensor and 16 is suspended above the image sensor), and comprising a plurality of lenses (lenses 16 and 231); and
an optical path member (infrared cut filter 17, paragraphs [0246]-[0248] a glass substrate which has the function of cutting infrared light. This substrate is an optical path member at least in the sense that it is in the optical path and is an optical element) disposed between the image sensor and the lens assembly (See Fig. 20, 17 is between 231 and 11g), …
wherein the optical path member is configured to be at least partially in contact with a first surface of a first lens (paragraph [0248]: “the lens 231 is provided on the glass substrate. In other words, a lowermost layer lens in a plurality of lenses constituting the lens 16 is provided on the glass substrate of the imaging element 11g”. See Fig. 20, “provided on” corresponds to the first surface of lens 231 being directly in contact with the glass substrate thereunder.) adjacent to the image sensor among the plurality of lenses of the lens assembly (lens 231 is the first lens adjacent to the image sensor amongst the lenses 16 and 231).”
(claim 8) “The camera module of claim 1, wherein: among the plurality of lenses, a group of lenses excluding the first lens (lens 16 where lens holder 34 is schematically depicted as being appropriate for holding 3 lenses. Note that lens 16 does not include lens 231) is configured to move in a first direction parallel to a direction perpendicular to a surface of the image sensor (paragraph [0067]: “When current flows in the coil 24, force is generated in an up-down direction (Z direction) in the figure. The lens 16 held by the lens holder 34 is shifted upward or downward by the generated force. As a result, a distance between the lens 16 and the imaging element 11 changes. Auto focus (AF: Auto-Focus) is achieved by such a mechanism.” The Z-direction is parallel to a direction perpendicular to the surface of the image sensor).”
However, Kimura fails to teach “the optical path member including either a plurality of optical fibers or a plurality of optical waveguides.”
Chen teaches (claim 1) “A camera module (digital camera module 10), comprising:
an image sensor (image sensor 70);
a lens assembly (lens module 40), disposed on the image sensor (see Fig. 1, 40 is disposed on the image sensor in that it is disposed above it), and comprising a plurality of lenses (a plurality of lenses 42,); and
an optical path member (light guide plate 60) disposed between the image sensor and the lens assembly (see Fig. 1), the optical path member including either a plurality of optical fibers or a plurality of optical waveguides (light guide plate 60 includes a plurality of optical waveguides, namely the plurality of high-transmittance areas 62 which can be holes filled with air or a transparent material see col. 3 lines 31-45. Note that light guide and waveguide are synonymous within the field, and the high transmittance areas are each waveguides in that they guide the light waves therethrough.).”
Chen further teaches (col. 1 lines 30-41): “The image formed on the image sensor by the lenses always has a higher light intensity at a center portion thereof and a lower light intensity at a peripheral portion thereof. Thus, the relative illumination of the image is poor. In order to get a better relative illumination, it is conventional to add to the size and/or number of the lens(es) to improve light intensity at the peripheral portion. However, it makes the digital module relatively much bigger and heavier.
What is needed, therefore, is a small-sized, digital still camera module with a light optimization mechanism which satisfies the needs for better, more uniform illumination of the image formed on the image sensor.”
(col. 3 lines 39-45): “The profile and the amount of the high-transmittance areas 62 appropriately increase with the increase of the distance between the center of the light guide plate 60 and the centers of the respective high-transmittance areas 62. Thus, the peripheral portion of the light guide plate 60 has a higher light transmittance than that of the central portion of the light guide plate 60.”
(col. 4 lines 31-40): “Though the light intensity of the light reaching the peripheral portion of light guide plate 60 is lower than that reaching the central portion of the light guide plate 60, the intensity of the light is made more uniform after transmitting through the light guide plate 60, as it favors light transmission at the periphery thereof. Thereby, the light intensity of the light received by the image sensor 70 is reasonably uniform, and the image formed by the digital still camera module 10 has a better relative illumination between the peripheral portion and the central portion thereof.”
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose as the optical path member of Kimura, a light guide plate with a plurality of waveguides therein where the peripheral portion of the light guide plate 60 has a higher light transmittance than that of the central portion of the light guide plate as taught by Chen for the purpose of improving the relative illumination between the peripheral and central portions of the image as taught by Chen (col. 1 lines 30-41, col. 3 lines 39-45 and col. 4 lines 31-40).
However, Kimura and Chen do not specifically disclose that an optical path member that is a light guide plate can be configured to be at least partially in contact with a first surface of a first lens.
Migliaccio teaches (claim 1) “A camera module (see elements thereof that follow), comprising:
an image sensor (col. 2 line 64 to col. 3 line 2: “CCD array”);
a lens assembly (col. 2 line 64 to col. 3 line 2: “wide angle imaging ball lens”), disposed on the image sensor (col. 2 line 64 to col. 3 line 2: "It is a further object of the present invention to provide a wide angle imaging ball lens optically immersed with a fiber optic faceplate and coupled to a CCD array such that the lens provides a flat focal plane over an extended spectral range corresponding to the size of the surface of the CCD array to which the fiber optic faceplate is optically coupled."), and comprising a plurality of lenses (first element 6 and second element 12); and
an optical path member (fiber optic faceplate 22) disposed between the image sensor and the lens assembly (see Fig. 1 where the object-side is 2 and the image-side is 4 and thus 22 is between 12 and the CCD array, and col. 2 line 64 to col. 3 line 2 which explains that the purpose of the fiber optic plate is to map the curved plane of the image-side of the second lens element to a flat surface corresponding to the flat surface of a CCD.), the optical path member including either a plurality of optical fibers or a plurality of optical waveguides (bundles of optical fibers 28. Note that optical fibers are a type of optical waveguide, thus Migliaccio teaches both a plurality of optical fibers and a plurality of optical waveguides),
wherein the optical path member is configured to be at least partially in contact with a first surface of a first lens (22 is configured to be at least partially in contact with second element 12 because of their corresponding shapes see Fig. 1 and col. 5 lines 62-64: “interface between convex surface 16 of the second lens element 12 and concave surface 24 of the fiber optic faceplate 22 (third element).” See also col. 2 line 64 to col. 3 line 2: "It is a further object of the present invention to provide a wide angle imaging ball lens optically immersed with a fiber optic faceplate”) adjacent to the image sensor among the plurality of lenses of the lens assembly (second element 12 is adjacent to the image sensor among the lenses of the wide angle imaging ball lens).”
Thus, in the above combination of Kimura and Chen where the optical path member is selected to be a light guide plate, an ordinary skilled artisan would know that one can maintain the configuration of Kimura where the optical path member is configured to be at least partially in contact with the image side surface of the lens adjacent to the image side, because Migliaccio teaches that the image-side surface of the lens closest to the image side can be immersed in a fiber optic plate.
It is a well established proposition that forming in one piece an article which has formerly been formed into two pieces and put together involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP § 2144.04(V) In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965) (A claim to a fluid transporting vehicle was rejected as obvious over a prior art reference which differed from the prior art in claiming a brake drum integral with a clamping means, whereas the brake disc and clamp of the prior art comprise several parts rigidly secured together as a single unit. The court affirmed the rejection holding, among other reasons, "that the use of a one piece construction instead of the structure disclosed in [the prior art] would be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice.").
In the instant case, the Kimura – Chen combination teaches the disclosed invention except for whether the optical path member is still configured to be in contact with the first lens when the optical path member is modified in view of Chen to be a light guide plate. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to keep the optical path member in contact with the first lens as taught by Migliaccio, since it has been held that forming in one piece an article which has formerly been formed into two pieces and put together involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP § 2144.04(V) In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965) (A claim to a fluid transporting vehicle was rejected as obvious over a prior art reference which differed from the prior art in claiming a brake drum integral with a clamping means, whereas the brake disc and clamp of the prior art comprise several parts rigidly secured together as a single unit. The court affirmed the rejection holding, among other reasons, "that the use of a one piece construction instead of the structure disclosed in [the prior art] would be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice."). Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success when making this modification because Chen teaches that the light guide plate should be on the image side of the lens assembly and Kimura already teaches that the first lens is in contact with an optical path member.
Regarding claim 10, the Kimura – Chen – Migliaccio combination teaches “The camera module of claim 8,” and Kimura further teaches “wherein:
the group of lenses excluding the first lens (lens 16 which is lenses other than lens 231. Note that although Kimura does not explicitly state that lens 16 is made of more than one lens element, such a configuration would at once be envisaged by an ordinary skilled artisan because lenses typically include more than one lens, and Fig. 1 depicts the lens holder 34 such that it would appropriately hold 3 lenses.1) is configured to move in a second direction substantially parallel to the surface of the image sensor (paragraph [0069]: “When current flows in the FP coils 31, force is generated in a left-right direction (X-Y plane direction) in the figure. The generated force shifts the lens 16 (OIS holder 35) held by the lens holder 34 is shifted in up-down and left-right directions in the X-Y plane to be shifted in a direction for reducing an effect of disturbance such as hand-vibration. Image stabilization is achieved by such a mechanism.”).”
Regarding claim 11, the Kimura – Chen – Migliaccio combination teaches “The camera module of claim 8,” and Kimura further teaches “wherein the group of lenses excluding the first lens (lens 16 that is configured to move in a first direction parallel to a direction perpendicular to a surface of the image sensor) comprise a second lens (lens 16 or the lens element of lens 16 that is closest to the object-side) disposed farthest from the image sensor among the plurality of lenses (Lens 16 is disposed farthest from the image sensor among 16 and 231. Also, the lens element of lens 16 that is closest to the object-side is disposed farthest from the image sensor among the plurality of lenses).”
Regarding claim 13, the Kimura – Chen – Migliaccio combination teaches “The camera module of claim 11,” and Kimura further teaches “wherein:
the second lens (lens 16 or the lens element of lens 16 that is closest to the object-side) is configured to move in a second direction substantially parallel to the surface of the image sensor (paragraph [0069]: “When current flows in the FP coils 31, force is generated in a left-right direction (X-Y plane direction) in the figure. The generated force shifts the lens 16 (OIS holder 35) held by the lens holder 34 is shifted in up-down and left-right directions in the X-Y plane to be shifted in a direction for reducing an effect of disturbance such as hand-vibration. Image stabilization is achieved by such a mechanism.”).”
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed February 9, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Under the heading “Remarks” on page 5 of 7 of the applicant’s remarks the applicant lists the disposition of the claims as claims 1-8, 10, 11 and 13-20 are pending, with claims 14-20 withdrawn and claims 9 and 12 being cancelled. No argument is made in these lines.
Under heading I. Objection to the Drawings on page 5 of 7 of the applicant’s remarks the applicant argues that the drawing objections should be overcome by the cancellation of claim 12. The examiner agrees, the drawing objections of the previous office action have been withdrawn.
Under heading II. Rejection under 35 U.S.C. §112 on page 5 of 7 of the applicant’s remarks the applicant argues that “In view of the foregoing amendments to the claims, it is respectfully submitted that these rejections are overcome and withdrawal is respectfully requested.” No specific argument is made in this section. The examiner agrees that the amendment to claim 1 overcomes the 35 USC §112 rejection of claim 1. However, as explained above, the claims 8, 10-11 and 13 as amended still have many of the issues previously presented and raise additional issues.
Under heading III. Rejections under 35 U.S.C. §102 on page 5 of 7 of the applicant’s remarks the applicant argues that the anticipation rejection over Kimura US 2021/0165237 A1 has been overcome by the amendment to claim 1 that now specifies “the optical path member including either a plurality of optical fibers or a plurality of optical waveguides.” The examiner agrees, the 35 U.S.C. §102 rejection of claims 1-3 and 8-13 over Kimura are withdrawn. However, a new grounds of rejection of claims 8, 10-11 and 13 over Kimura in view of Chen and Migliaccio is entered in light of the amendments to claim 8.
In lines 1-10 of page 6 of 7 of the applicant’s remarks the applicant introduces that they will be arguing that the following limitations are not taught by Migliaccio: “an image sensor; a lens assembly, disposed on the image sensor, and comprising a plurality of lenses; and an optical path member disposed between the image sensor and the lens assembly.” No specific argument is made in these lines.
In lines 11-14 of page 6 of 7 of the applicant’s remarks the applicant summarizes the item by item matching of claim 1 over Migliaccio. Notably missing from this summary are (1) the identification of the first lens element 6 and the second lens element 12 as the plurality of lenses of which the lens assembly is comprised (2) the citation to col. 2 line 64 to col. 3 line 2 from which it is readily deduced that the CCD array is located on the flat side of the fiber optic plate and (3) the identification of the second lens element 12 as the claimed first lens which is closest to the image sensor.
In lines 15-18 of page 6 of 7 of the applicant’s remarks the applicant argues that because the CCD array and the ball lens are not labeled in any of the drawings of Migliaccio that the “Applicant is unable to determine which specific elements of Migliaccio the Office is equating to the claimed image sensor or lens assembly.” The applicant’s submission that they cannot understand the rejection cannot be the basis of a persuasive argument given the detailed item-by-item matching of the claim rejection and the mere 6 opening columns of Migliaccio that one would need to read to confirm the propriety of the rejection. At the examiner’s best guess, the applicant’s lack of understanding of the rejection stems from the mistake that they make in their analysis of Migliaccio in the following lines 19-24 of page 6 of 7.
In lines 19-24 of page 6 of 7, the applicant argues that the fiber optic faceplate 22 is not between the lens assembly and the CCD because the fiber optic faceplate is on the object side surface of the lens. This is a misunderstanding by the applicant of the disclosure of Migliaccio. In col. 4 lines 13-38, Migliaccio explains that the object-side is 2 and the image-side is 4. Thus, the fiber bundle 28 is on the image side of the optical system, between the second lens element 12 and the CCD array that is present but not depicted in the figure. Additionally, from col. 2 line 66 to col. 3 line 2 (which was already cited in the rejection of record) Migliaccio explains “a fiber optic faceplate and coupled to a CCD array such that the lens provides a flat focal plane over an extended spectral range corresponding to the size of the surface of the CCD array to which the fiber optic faceplate is optically coupled.” Thus an ordinary skilled artisan could tell that the flat-side of the fiber optic plate is the side proximate to the CCD array, because it maps the curved plane of the image-side of the second lens element to a flat surface corresponding to the flat surface of a CCD. Since this is the purpose of the fiber optic bundle, this disambiguates any other portions of the specification that the applicant may have found confusing.
No further arguments are made after this paragraph.
The request for an interview with the examiner in the paragraph spanning pages 6 and 7 of the applicant’s remarks is denied. The nature and number of the outstanding issues of patentability are such that it does not appear that an interview would result in expediting allowance of the application at this time. See MPEP §713.01 (IV) “An interview should be had only when the nature of the case is such that the interview could serve to develop and clarify specific issues and lead to a mutual understanding between the examiner and the applicant, and thereby advance the prosecution of the application. … Where a complete reply to a first action includes a request for an interview, the examiner, after consideration of the reply, should grant such an interview request if it appears that the interview would result in expediting the allowance of the application.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Jackson et al. US 5,299,275 A “Optical Fiber Filter For Reducing Artifacts In Imaging Apparatus” pertinent to at least claims 4 and 5.
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 CARA E RAKOWSKI whose telephone number is (571)272-4206. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-4PM ET M-F.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Thomas Pham can be reached at 571-272-3689. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CARA E RAKOWSKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
1 See MPEP § 2131.02(III). A reference disclosure can anticipate a claim when the reference describes the limitations but "'d[oes] not expressly spell out' the limitations as arranged or combined as in the claim, if a person of skill in the art, reading the reference, would ‘at once envisage’ the claimed arrangement or combination." Kennametal, Inc. v. Ingersoll Cutting Tool Co., 780 F.3d 1376, 1381, 114 USPQ2d 1250, 1254 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (quoting In re Petering, 301 F.2d 676, 681(CCPA 1962)).