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 April 24, 2026 in response to the office action mailed February 27, 2026 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 Claims 1-8, 10-11 and 13-20 are pending, of which claims 1-8, 10-11 and 13 are elected, and claims 14-20 are withdrawn as being drawn to a non-elected invention.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.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on April 24, 2026 has been entered.
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The amendments to the claims overcome one of the 35 USC §112 issues raised in the previous rejection. However, most of the 35 USC §112 rejections of the previous office action remain, which are maintained and updated in accordance with the amendments. Additionally, the amendment to claim 1 raises new 35 USC §112 issues explained below.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-8, 10-11 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 1, the newly added recitation “wherein a maximum thickness of the optical path member is not greater than a maximum thickness of the first lens along a direction vertical to a surface of the image sensor” was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Firstly, the Applicant has not pointed out where the amended claim is supported, nor does there appear to be a written description of the claim limitation that “the maximum thickness of the optical path member is not greater than the maximum thickness of the first lens along a direction vertical to a surface of the image sensor” in the application as filed. (see MPEP §2163.04, Sec. I). Quite to the contrary, the only instances of thicknesses or sizes of any of the elements of the camera module being discussed is to note that the drawings cannot be relied upon. Paragraph [0035] of the instant specification discloses:
“The drawings may not be to scale, and the relative size, proportions, and depiction of elements in the drawings may be exaggerated for clarity, illustration, and convenience.”
Similarly paragraph [0039] of the instant specification discloses:
“Further, since sizes and thicknesses of constituent members shown in the accompanying drawings are arbitrarily given for better understanding and ease of description, the embodiments are not limited to the illustrated sizes and thicknesses. In the drawings, the thicknesses of layers, films, panels, regions, etc., are exaggerated for clarity. In the drawings, for better understanding and ease of description, the thicknesses of some layers and areas are exaggerated.”
Thus, not only are the relative thicknesses of the first lens and the optical path member not discussed, the specification makes clear that their relative sizes cannot be deduced from the Figures. Rather, the specification notes the thicknesses of some layers may be exaggerated without any guidance as to which ones.
Claims 2-8, 10-11 and 13 depend from claim 1 and inherit and do not mitigate the above written description issue from claim 1.
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, as a preliminary matter, it is worth noting that one of the indefiniteness issues previously raised has been overcome by amendment, because “in order to perform an autofocus (AF) operation” does provide a constraint on the group of lenses, namely that they must be able to be moved relative to the image sensor, and thus cannot be fixed thereto. However, the following issues remain.
In particular, 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. The remarks submitted April 24, 2026 do not address this deficiency.
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 in order to perform an autofocus (AF) operation” 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”, “wherein a spacing between the group of lenses and the first lens changes during auto-focusing” or “wherein the auto-focusing function is performed solely by the movement of the group of lenses”. 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 in order to perform an autofocus (AF) operation. The remarks submitted April 24, 2026 do not address this deficiency.
Now that one issue has been rectified, the examiner recommends the following language to overcome the remaining issues of claim 8:
8. (proposed amendment) The camera module of claim 1, wherein: stationary during an autofocus (AF) operation and at least one other lens among the plurality of lenses is configured to move in a first direction parallel to a direction perpendicular to a surface of the image sensor in order to perform an autofocus (AF) operation.
This amendment would unambiguously encompass all of the embodiments of Figs. 8, 9 and 10. Claims 10 and 11 would need to be amended accordingly to change “the group of lenses excluding the first lens” to “the at least one other lens”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 in order to perform an optical image stabilization (OIS) operation” and (claim 13) “the second lens is configured to move in a second direction substantially parallel to the surface of the image sensor in order to perform an optical image stabilization (OIS) operation” are 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. Furthermore, the addition of “in order to perform an optical image stabilization (OIS) operation” does not rectify this issue because OIS can be performed by moving the entirety of the camera, and thus places no limits on the lenses therein.
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 in a second direction substantially parallel to the surface of the image sensor in order to perform an optical image stabilization (OIS) operation." (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. Applicant’s admission on page 5 of 7 of the remarks that “As one of ordinary skill in the art would clearly appreciate, in order for the claimed lenses to perform one or both of an autofocus (AF) operation and an optical image stabilization (OIS) operation, a driving unit would inherently be required for such movement” reinforces the position of the Office that the performance of this function is a property of an unrecited driving unit, not a property of a lens or lens group.
Appropriate correction is required.
The examiner recommends the following amendments to claims 10, 11 and 13 to match with the above suggestion for claim 8, and to provide a functional limitation that limits the plurality of lenses, by requiring them not to be fixed relative to the image sensor, as opposed to the recitation of a function of an unrecited driving unit.
10. (proposed amendment) The camera module of claim 8, wherein: the at least one other lens is configured to move relative to the image sensor in a second direction substantially parallel to the surface of the image sensor in order to perform an optical image stabilization (OIS) operation.
11. (proposed amendment) The camera module of claim 8, wherein the at least one other lens
13. (proposed amendment) The camera module of claim 11, wherein: the second lens is configured to move relative to the image sensor in a second direction substantially parallel to the surface of the image sensor in order to perform an optical image stabilization (OIS) operation.
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 1-8, 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), Jackson et al. US 5,299,275 (hereafter Jackson), Ishihara US 9,104,018 B2 (hereafter Ishihara) and Migliaccio US 5,311,611 (hereafter Migliaccio).
Regarding claim 1, Kimura teaches “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).”
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 provide any of the thicknesses of the optical elements, and therefor do not specifically teach “wherein a maximum thickness of the optical path member is not greater than a maximum thickness of the first lens along a direction vertical to a surface of the image sensor.”
Jackson et al. teaches (claim 1) “A camera module (the imaging apparatus of Figs. 1 or 7), comprising:
an image sensor (image sensor 18 or image sensor 18 and sensor carrier 38);
a lens assembly (lens 12), disposed on the image sensor (see Figs. 1 or 7), and comprising a plurality of lenses (although “lens 12” is depicted as a single lens, one of ordinary skill in the art would know that the term “lens” within an imaging apparatus typically refers to a group of lenses that together perform a function on incoming light); and
an optical path member (optical fiber array 16) disposed between the image sensor and the lens assembly (see Figs. 1 and 7), the optical path member including either a plurality of optical fibers or a plurality of optical waveguides (optical fiber array 16 is a plurality of optical fibers, and because optical fibers are waveguides, is also a plurality of optical waveguides),
… a first lens adjacent to the image sensor among the plurality of lenses of the lens assembly (the lens of 12 that is closest to the image sensor) and
wherein a maximum thickness of the optical path member (col. 5 lines 47-49: The optical fiber array 16 shown in FIG. 2 is a thin structure, having a thickness t on the order of a fraction of a millimeter, e.g. about 500 microns.).”
Jackson further teaches col. 5 lines 48-52: “The optical fiber array 16 shown in FIG. 2 is a thin structure, having a thickness t on the order of a fraction of a millimeter, e.g. about 500 microns. The only requirement is that incoming light can reflect from the fiber walls a multiplicity of times so as to achieve an integrating effect.” and col. 6 lines 47-52: "The optical fiber array 16 is in near contact with the image sensor 18 and is typically only a fraction of a millimeter thick. Thus the imager package can be quite thin for systems where space is at a premium."
Ishihara teaches (claim 1) “A camera module (the imaging apparatus of Fig. 7), comprising:
an image sensor (image sensor ICD);
a lens assembly (lenses G1-G5), disposed on the image sensor (see Fig. 7), and comprising a plurality of lenses (G1-G5 are five lenses); and
an optical path member (optical transmission unit OTM, see col. 20 lines 49-53) disposed between the image sensor and the lens assembly (see Figs. 1 and 7), the optical path member including either a plurality of optical fibers or a plurality of optical waveguides (col. 20 lines 49-53: “The optical transmission unit OTM of this example is an image fiber formed of bound optical fibers of a few micron pitch”. This is a plurality of optical fibers, and because optical fibers are waveguides, is also a plurality of optical waveguides),
…
a first lens (G5) adjacent to the image sensor among the plurality of lenses of the lens assembly (G5 is closest to the ICD in Fig. 7),
wherein a maximum thickness of the optical path member (see col. 24 line 50 to col. 25 line 2, the OTM is positioned between surfaces 8 and 9 in Table 9. From Fig. 7, one can reasonably deduce that the OTM does not overlap surface 8, and thus that the maximum thickness of the OTM is 4.3457 in Table 9, and is likely to be significantly smaller than that) is not greater than a maximum thickness of the first lens along a direction vertical to a surface of the image sensor (Table 9 D of surface 7 is the thickness of the first lens which is 5.4967, where 4.3457 is not greater than 5.4967).”
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 the thickness of the optical path member to be about 500 microns (0.5 mm) as taught by Jackson in the device of the Kimura – Chen combination such that the maximum thickness of the optical path member is not greater than the thickness of the first lens along a direction vertical to a surface of the image sensor as taught by Ishihara. One would have been motivated to keep the thickness of the optical path member on the order of 0.5 mm as taught by Jackson, which is thinner than typical lens thicknesses as evidenced by Ishihara, because such a thickness is sufficient to perform as optical fibers should, while allowing the imager packages to be quite thin for systems where space is at a premium as taught by Jackson (col. 5 lines 47-53 and col. 6 lines 47-52).
However, Kimura, Chen, Jackson and Ishihara 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 – Jackson – Ishihara 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 2, the Kimura combination teaches "The camera module of claim 1,” and Kimura further teaches “wherein the optical path member is configured to be disposed directly on the image sensor (see Figs. 19 and 20, 17 is disposed "directly" on the image sensor, in that there is at most an adhesive layer therebetween. Furthermore, 17 is "configured to be disposed directly on the image sensor" in that both 17 and 11g have flat major surfaces facing one another and thus 17 is capable of being disposed directly on the image sensor)."
Regarding claim 3, Kimura teaches "The camera module of claim 1, wherein: a surface of the optical path member and the first surface of the first lens, which are at least partially in contact with each other, are configured to have opposite shapes (the upper surface of 17 and the lower surface of 231 have "opposite" shapes in that they are both flat and thus configured to be positioned flush with, adjacent to and opposite to one another)."
Note that there is no reason why this aspect of the optical path member would not be maintained when the other modifications to the device proposed for claim 1 are performed, especially given that the optical path members of both Chen and Jackson are also flat on the object-side.
Regarding claim 4, the Kimura combination teaches “The camera module of claim 1,” however, Kimura fails to teach “wherein the optical path member comprises a plurality of optical fibers.”
Chen as introduced above teaches a plurality of optical waveguides (as introduced above Chen teaches light guide plate 60 which 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.), but not that these waveguides should be optical fibers.
Jackson teaches “wherein the optical path member comprises a plurality of optical fibers (col. 4 lines 2-12: “The optical fiber array 16 includes a two-dimensional structure of optical fibers 26 interposed along an optical axis in the path of image light… That is, the fibers 26 are carefully arranged so that their terminations occupy the same relative positions in both of the bound ends of the bundle.”).”
Jackson also teaches that the fibers can be of several different diameters or arranged at different pitches (see Figs. 5 and 6 and col. 6 lines 4-24).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose to form the optical path member of Chen in the Kimura combination from a plurality of parallel optical fibers as taught by Jackson because Jackson teaches that such an optical fiber array in order to properly pass the image light from the lens system to the image sensor while performing the desired function thereon (Jackson e.g. Fig. 2 and col. 4 lines 2-12).
Regarding claim 5, the Kimura combination teaches “The camera module of claim 4,” however, Kimura fails to teach “wherein the optical fibers are configured to extend in parallel with a direction perpendicular to a surface of the image sensor.”
Jackson teaches “wherein the optical waveguides are configured to extend in parallel with a direction perpendicular to a surface of the image sensor (see parallel array of fibers in Fig. 2 and col. 4 lines 2-12: “The optical fiber array 16 includes a two-dimensional structure of optical fibers 26 interposed along an optical axis in the path of image light… That is, the fibers 26 are carefully arranged so that their terminations occupy the same relative positions in both of the bound ends of the bundle.”).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to arrange the high-transmittance areas of the optical path member of Chen in the Kimura combination parallel to one another and perpendicular to the surface of the image sensor as taught by Jackson, because Chen is not specific about the angular orientation of the high-transmittance areas and Jackson teaches in a similar optical path member, that the orientations should be parallel to each other and perpendicular to the surface of the image sensor in order to properly pass the image light from the lens system to the image sensor while performing the desired function thereon (Jackson e.g. Fig. 2 and col. 4 lines 2-12).
Regarding claim 6, the Kimura combination introduced for claim 1 teaches “The camera module of claim 1, wherein the optical path member comprises a plurality of optical waveguides (as introduced above Chen teaches light guide plate 60 which 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.)."
As explained for claim 1, 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).
Regarding claim 7, the Kimura combination introduced for claim 1 teaches “The camera module of claim 6,” however, Kimura fails to teach “wherein the optical waveguides are configured to extend in parallel with a direction perpendicular to a surface of the image sensor.”
Chen, as introduced above, reasonably suggests “wherein the optical waveguides are configured to extend in parallel with a direction perpendicular to a surface of the image sensor (only a plan view of light guide plate 60 is depicted in Fig. 2, however, absent a specifica teaching that the high-transmittance areas are at an angle with respect to the optical axis, one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably deduce that they extend in parallel with a direction perpendicular to a surface of the image sensor).”
Jackson teaches “wherein the optical waveguides are configured to extend in parallel with a direction perpendicular to a surface of the image sensor (see parallel array of fibers in Fig. 2 and col. 4 lines 2-12: “The optical fiber array 16 includes a two-dimensional structure of optical fibers 26 interposed along an optical axis in the path of image light… That is, the fibers 26 are carefully arranged so that their terminations occupy the same relative positions in both of the bound ends of the bundle.”).”
Further note that Jackson also teaches that the fibers can be of several different diameters or arranged at different pitches (see Figs. 5 and 6 and col. 6 lines 4-24).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to arrange the high-transmittance areas of the optical path member of Chen in the Kimura combination parallel to one another and perpendicular to the surface of the image sensor as taught by Jackson, because Chen is not specific about the angular orientation of the high-transmittance areas and Jackson teaches in a similar optical path member, that the orientations should be parallel to each other and perpendicular to the surface of the image sensor in order to properly pass the image light from the lens system to the image sensor while performing the desired function thereon (Jackson e.g. Fig. 2 and col. 4 lines 2-12).
Regarding claim 8, the Kimura combination teaches “The camera module of claim 1,” and Kimura further teaches “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 in order to perform an autofocus (AF) operation (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).”
Regarding claim 10, the Kimura 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 in order to perform an optical image stabilization (OIS) operation (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 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 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 in order to perform an optical image stabilization (OIS) operation (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 with respect to claim(s) 1-8, 10-11 and 13 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
The request for an interview with the examiner on page 7 of 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
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)).
Prosecution Insights